o 


# 

l 

.^ 

nf 

' 

-? 

1 

,> 

^ 

0) 

J5 

\      ■* 

.il.^ 

IE 

i^r        ►^ 

Q. 

x^ 

1 

*B^     ^ 

*o 

;       j 

^ 

$ 

j 

^      S 

(U 

c 

^        o 

bl) 

Cv                1 

^                r^ 

< 

^ 

l^               g 

^               1 

^ 

E 

~      ..§ 

<•>                M 

to 

"kJ 

*s     « 

to 

1- 

2 

Ck 

^ 

^ 

% 

-a 

c 

§ 

^ 

2f 

1 

•«# 

CL 

# 

: 1 

^- 


CL.  ( 


THE 


SCRIPTURAL  AND  HISTORICAL 
ARGUMENTS 


FOR 


INFANT   BAPTISM 


EXAMINED. 


BY 

J.    TORREY    SMITH,   A.  M. 


:|51jilfltolpliia : 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETT, 

118  ARCH   STREET. 

1850. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1850,  by  the 

AMERICAN   BAPTIST  PUBLICATION   SOCIETY, 

in  the  Clerk's  Of&ce  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in 
and  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


INTRODUCTION. 


When  shall  Christians  see  eye  to  eye  ?  When 
shall  the  watchmen  of  Zion  lift  up  their  voices 
together?  Such  are  the  breathings  of  all  true 
hearts  as  they  look  around  upon  the  present  di- 
vided state  of  Christendom,  and  listen  to  the  dis- 
cordant voices  that  murmur  on  every  side. 

It  may  be  that  the  strongest,  as  well  as  the 
most  susceptible  minds,  unite  in  deploring  the 
existence  of  controversy  among  Christians.  There 
is  abundant  reason  to  deplore  it.  Yet  while  any 
sincere  Christians  mistake  their  Master's  will,  and 
live  in  disobedience  to  his  commands — while  any 
of  "the  leaders  of  God's  people  cause  them  to 
err'' — however  unconsciously  or  unwillingly — 
there  is  a  solemn  and  imperative  necessity  for 
controversy.  And  none  can  deny  that  such  is 
the  case  still  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Baptism, 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

after  all  that  has  been  written  upon  it  for  the  last 
two  or  three  centuries.  And  even  if  Baptists 
were  to  hold  their  peace,  such  are  the  different 
Tiews  and  conflicting  practices  of  Pedobaptists, 
that  controversy  would  still  roll  its  stormy  clouds 
among  them  for  years  to  come.  So  long,  for 
example,  as  the  gorgeous  antique  error  of  "  bap- 
tismal regeneration"  is  maintained  by  the  Greek 
and  Roman,  and  in  fact  by  all  National  Protestant 
Churches — that  is  to  say,  by  full  nine-tenths  of 
nominal  Christendom — can  there  be  peace  ?  Or, 
could  there  be,  unless  it  were  the  peace  of  the 
grave  ?  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Joram  saw 
Jehu,  that  he  said.  Is  it  peace,  Jehu  ?  And  he 
answered,  "What  peace,  so  long  as  the  whoredoms 
of  thy  mother  Jezebel  and  her  witchcrafts  are  so 
many  V — 2  Kings,  ix.  22. 

But  we  turn  from  this  "outer  court  of  the 
temple,''  which,  according  to  prophecy,  is  for  the 
time  "  given  up  to  the  G-entiles,''  and  look  into 
the  sanctuary  of  Evangelical  Christendom.  May 
not  Peace  dwell  here  in  blessed  harmony  with 
Truth  ?  Here,  where  the  "  glory  of  the  Lord" 
is  already  gleaming  from  "  within  the  veil"  upon 
the  eyes  of  the  earnest  worshippers,  must  not  all 
darkness  and  discord  disappear  ?  Would  to  God 
that  it  were  so  I     How  sad  to  find  divisions  even 


INTRODUCTION.  0 

here  !  An  eloquent  writer  upon  this  very  subject* 
has  said,  "  Instead  of  pouring  their  united  strength 
upon  the  territories  of  darkness,  what  are  Chris- 
tians doing  ?  They  are  frustrating  the  Gospel  by 
dissensions  among  themselves." 

If  this  be  so — if  the  divisions  of  Christians  are, 
to  a  lamentable  degree,  "  frustrating  the  Gospel" 
— how  keenly  ought  all  parties  to  question  them- 
selves. For  the  divisions  of  Reuben  there  were 
great  searchings  of  heart.  Is  it  not  true  that  "  the 
religion  of  multitudes  is  not  attachment  to  Christ, 
nor  to  truth,  but  to  family  and  Church  ?"  Can 
such  a  religion  save  them  ?  However  pleasing 
to  parents,  flattering  to  pastors  and  teachers,  and 
agreeable  to  themselves,  is  it  not  essentially  un- 
sound— the  growth  of  a  subtle  but  ruinous  delu- 
sion— like  that  which  said  of  old,  ive  have  Abra- 
ham for  our  father  ?  Shall  evangelical  Christians 
then  foster  it  ?  Shall  they  plant  and  nourish 
in  the  souls  of  their  children  the  very  root  on 
which  it  anciently  grew,  is  now  growing,  and  must 
ever  grow  ?  Shall  the  very  tenderness  of  parental 
love  betray  its  objects  into  deep  delusion,  by  con- 
founding the  Abrahamic  Covenant  of  Circumci- 
sion with  the  Abrahamic  Covenant  of   Christ? 

*'  Eev.  Richard  Fuller,  D.  D.,  of  Baltimore,  in  his  recent 
book  on  "  Baptism  and  the  Terms  of  Communion,"  ISoO. 
1* 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

These  two  covenants — so  essentially  distinct — so 
constantly  distinguished,  and  so  clearly  contrasted 
in  the  Scriptures — shall  they  be  still  counted  one 
and  the  same — not  only  by  carnal  Jews  and 
carnal  Churchmen,  but  by  spiritual  Christians 
who  believe  and  know  the  solemn  necessity  of  the 
new  birth  unto  righteousness  ?  In  the  language 
of  the  Psalmist  we  would  say  with  deep  emotion, 
'' 0  Lord,  Jioiv  long  ?" 

To  a  prayerful  reader  of  the  Bible,  it  is  some- 
times difficult  to  believe  that  such  confusion  of 
facts,  and  consequent  delusion  can  really  exist 
among  intelligent  Christians.  Let  such  read  the 
following  instance,  copied  from  the  Presbyterian 
— a  valuable  paper  published  in  this  city.  It  is 
introduced  as  an  "  instructive  extract,"  from  the 
Diary  of  the  Rev.  John  Macdonald,  of  Calcutta. 

"  November  24. — This  day  in  the  kind  providence  of  God, 
have  I  been  permitted  and  enabled  to  dedicate  my  little 
offspring  to  my  covenant  God  in  baptism ;  and  for  this  I 
give  thanks.  0  what  a  privilege  is  it !  I  trust  I  have  had 
communion  with  the  Lord  in  this  deed,  if  ever  I  had  it. 
Many  encouragements  have  I  felt,  and  no  misgivings  as  to 
infant  baptism  in  its  faithful  form.  Yea,  I  praise  God  for 
such  an  ordinance.  I  know  that  he  did  of  old  i-eceive  them 
into  his  covenant  by  seal.  I  know  also  that  infants  are 
capable  of  enjoying  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  gi*ace 
— that  the  want  of  faith  in  those  who  are  incapable  of  faith 
is  just  as  applicable  to  salvation  as  to  baptism,  and  there- 
fore constitutes  no  argument  against  it.    I  believe  that  the 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

seal  of  the  covenant  will  be  just  as  valid  to  the  child  when 
it  afterwards  believes,  as  if  baptized  when  adult— that  it  is  a 
gi'eat  pi-ivilege  to  have  it  externally  united  to  the  Church, 
and  for  a  parent  to  say,  '  This,  my  child,  has  been  solemnly 
and  publicly  given  to  God — it  is  federally  holy.'  I  believe 
that  the  Commission  of  Christ  included  the  children  of 
behevers,  and  that  the  Apostles  baptized  such  ;  and  I  know 
that  the  holiest  of  men  in  all  ages  have  had  communion 
with  their  God  in  this  ordinance.  But  why  enlarge  ?  0  my 
Lord,  I  bless  thee  for  saving  me  from  falling  into  the  cold 
and  forbidding  doctrines  of  antipedobaptism  !  0  give  me 
grace  to  improve  thine  ordinance  !" 

We  truly  agree  with  our  brethren  of  the  Pres- 
hyterianj  that  this  is  an  "  instructive  extract." 
It  instructs  us  how  fervently  every  pious  father, 
(Baptist  or  Pedobaptist,)  loves  his  children,  and 
devoutly  gives  them  up  to  God  for  their  sanc- 
tification  and  salvation.  It  instructs  us  how  in 
every  such  act  of  parental  devotion,  however  fre- 
quently repeated,  he  enjoys  communion  with  God, 
and  feels  it  to  be  an  unutterable  privilege,  se- 
cured to  him  by  the  Covenant  of  grace  in  Christ. 
And  it  instructs  us  also,  how  mournfully  parental 
love,  as  well  as  "  a  zeal  of  God,"  may  go  astray, 
because  its  ardor  is  "  not  according  to  knowledge." 
The  particular  act  with  which  he  associates  his 
dearest  feelings  for  his  child,  is  "  infant  haptism 
in  its  faithful  form. ^^  Now,  ivliat  is  this  ?  It  is 
language  nowhere  found  in  Scripture.     And  yet 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

he  "  praises  God  for  such  an  ordinance."  When 
and  where  was  it  ordained  ?  How  does  he  know 
that  it  is  an  ordinance  of  Grod?  He  does  not 
know  it.  Nay,  more,  he  cannot  know  it.  Yet  as 
a  Christian  father  he  will  teach  it  to  his  trusting 
child  I  As  a  Christian  missionary  he  will  teach 
it  to  the  trusting  Heathen  ! 

He  says,  indeed,  he  has  "no  misgivings." 
Is  it  really  so  ?  Why  then  does  he  attempt  to 
reason  the  matter  with  himself?  Why  does  he 
try  to  construct  an  argument  in  its  favor  from  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  the  capacity  of  infants 
for  the  blessings  of  grace,  the  future  validity  of 
the  seal  on  believing,  the  privilege  of  an  external 
connection  with  the  church,  federal  holiness,  the 
commission  of  Christ  to  teach  and  baptize,  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles  in  fulfilling  this  commis- 
sion, and  the  feelings  of  the  holiest  of  men  in  all 
ages — (not  one  of  which  has  anything  to  do 
with  God's  establishing  "  such  an  ordinance") 
— unless  because  he  wishes  to  quell  such  "  mis- 
givings" as  naturally  spring  in  the  heart  of  a  good 
man  from  the  doing  of  an  act  which  he  nowhere 
finds  divinely  commanded,  exemplified,  or  even 
alluded  to,  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  ?  He  may 
have  succeeded  in  quelling  his  misgivings — he 
may  not  feel  them  at  the  moment — he  may  even 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

Wess  God  for  "  saving  liim  from  falling  into  the 
cold  and  forbidding  doctrines  of  antipedobaptism" 
— but  even  this  fervent  thanksgiving  betrays  how 
narrowly  he  escaped  from  the  conviction  that  these 
misrepresented  doctrines  of  the  Baptists  are  true. 
That  they  are  true,  it  is  the  design  of  this  book 
to  show.  That  they  are  thought  "  cold  and  for- 
bidding," only  proves  under  what  false  views  they 
have  long  been  contemplated  and  rejected  by  good 
men.  It  is  not  a  ^^  cold"  indifference  to  the  sal- 
vation of  our  children  that  prevents  us  from  bring- 
ing them  to  baptism.  It  is  the  very  warmth  with 
which  we  love  them — with  which  we  would  guard 
them  and  others  from  fatal  delusions — with  which 
we  would  lead  them  to  Christy  and  Christ  alone, 
for  salvation.  Our  doctrines  on  this  subject  are 
drawn  from  the  very  Book  which  He  has  given, 
for  the  express  purpose  of  teaching  us  in  all 
things  whatsoever  liow  we  ought  to  loalk,  and  to 
phase  God.  If  that  Book  taught  us  to  baptize 
our  children,  none  would  do  it  more  readily  or 
warmly  than  we  would.  But  we  have  not  so 
learned  Christ.  So  far  from  "  forbidding"  our 
children  to  come  to  Him  that  they  may  have  life, 
'  God  is  our  witness  that  nothing  else  lies  so  near 
our  hearts.  And  blessed  be  his  name,  we  do  not 
labor  and  pray  for  this  in  vain. 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

We  would  suggest  here  that  this  question  may 
he  brought  to  a  practical  test.  Let  our  brethren  of 
other  persuasions  deal  candidly  with  us,  and  deal 
fairly  with  facts,  upon  this  point.  If  their  prac- 
tice is  right,  and  ours  wrong — if  they  keep  the 
"  covenant  of  God'^  in  regard  to  children,  and  we 
reject  it — would  not  the  comparative  results  of 
each  course  tend  to  convince  us  of  our  error? 
Would  not  fewer  of  our  children  be  converted,  or 
converted  at  a  later  period  of  life  ?  Let  then  the 
facts  be  examined.  Let  the  statistics  he  compared. 
If  our  increase  by  conversion  be  not  clearly  in- 
ferior, where  is  the  benefit  of  infant  baptism  ?  If 
it  be  in  equal  proportion  to  theirs,  where  is  the 
benefit  of  infant  baptism  ?  If,  (as  we  honestly 
think  from  the  examinations  we  have  been  able  to 
make,)  it  be  in  a  clearly  superior  ratio,  then  again 
we  ask,  where  is  the  benefit  of  infant  baptism  ? 
But  to  put  it  upon  the  simple  ground  of  equality, 
for  what  then  are  our  brethren  contending  ?  If 
God  by  the  dispensations  of  his  Spirit  puts  no  dif- 
ference between  them  and  us,  why  seek  to  uphold 
this  fallacious  idea  of  covenant  blessings  "  sealed" 
by  infant  baptism  ?  For  in  this  view  it  is  hy  facts 
demonstrated  to  be  fallacious.  And  if  fallacious 
in  fact,  how  evidently  fallacious  are  ail  the  aryu- 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

ments  by  which  it  is  attempted  to  uphold  it  as  an 
ordinance  of  God ! 

With  these  preliminary  remarks,  which  we 
make  with  every  disposition  to  deal  candidly  with 
our  brethren,  we  commit  this  volume  to  the  press ; 
and  commend  it  to  the  attention  of  all  who  love 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  who,  above  all  things, 
desire  that  his  kingdom  may  coine,  and  his  icill 
he  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven. 

J.  N.  B. 
Philadelphia,  March  15,  1850. 


,-^ 


PREFACE. 


A  LATE  writer*  introduces  an  article  on  the 
subject  of  baptism  with  the  following  eminently 
suggestive  remarks  > — 

"  There  has  ever  been  a  disposition  in  men  to 
run  to  extremes  in  matters  of  religion.  Some 
deem  outward  forms  of  no  avail,  and  discard  them 
altogether,  while  others  neglect  the  spirit  of  reli- 
gion in  their  extreme  devotion  to  its  forms.  The 
truly  religious  have  been  trying  long  to  solve  the 
problem  of  observing  the  forms  of  religion  with- 
out losing  the  spirit  of  piety,  and  of  seeking  after 
the  spirit  of  religion  without  neglecting  the  form. 
The  little  success  which  has  attended  their  efforts 
hitherto,  shows  clearly  that  this  problem  is  not  of 
easy  solution.'' 

'   The  importance  of  the  right  solution  of  this 
problem,  every  person  of  real  piety  must  admit. 

*  Rev.  J.  J.  Dana,  in  Biblical  Repository,  July,  1849. 


14  PREFACE. 

But  must  we  admit  that  there  is,  in  its  solution, 
(as  this  writer  seems  to  intimate,)  such  extreme 
difficulty  ?  It  is  certainly  one  that  God  has  laid 
upon  us  to  solve,  and  one  upon  whose  right  solu- 
tion the  perfection  of  our  piety  very  much  de- 
pends. On  the  one  hand,  he  has  required  us  to 
conform  to  his  institutions,  even  in  external  act, 
when  there  is  no  external  obstacle  in  the  way; 
and  on  the  other,  he  has  taught  us  that  this  ex- 
ternal conformity  is  of  no  avail,  when  it  does  not 
spring  from  faith.  So  that  we  cannot  escape  the 
problem. 

And  we  surely  ought  not  hastily  to  adopt  the 
conclusion,  that  Grod  has  imposed  upon  us  a  pro- 
blem whose  solution  is  so  essential,  which  yet  in- 
volves such  extreme  difficulty.  Every  a  priori 
consideration  would  oppose  such  a  conclusion. 

It  certainly  is  a  bold  position,  that  the  Divine 
Founder  of  Christianity  has  instituted  forms  of 
religion,  which  are,  in  their  influence,  prejudicial 
to  its  spirit.  Surely  all  lovers  of  the  Redeemer 
will,  with  one  voice,  remonstrate  against  this  posi- 
tion. And  if  any  one,  expressly  or  by  implica- 
tion, confesses  that  he  is  observing  forms  prejudi- 
cial to  the  spirit  of  piety,  there  is  strong  reason  to 
suspect  that  the  problem  which  he  finds  so  diffi- 
cult to  solve,  is  that  of  reconciling  corruptions  of 


PREFACE.  15 

Christianity  with  the  spirit  of  religion.  That 
problem  might  involve  serious  difficulty. 

The  writer  above  referred  to,  illustrating  the 
supposed  difficulty  which  he  describes,  refers  to 
the  ancient  Pharisees.  ^'  They  were  strict  in  per- 
forming the  external  duties  of  religion,  and  yet 
had  not  the  love  of  God  in  them."  This  is  cer- 
tainly an  unfortunate  reference.  The  Saviour 
accused  them  oi  making  the  commandment  of  God 
of  none  effect,  not  by  observing  the  forms  it  pre- 
scribed, but  BY  THEIR  TRADITION,  and  declares  of 
them,  ^^  In  vain  do  they  worship  God^  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.'' 

He  adds  another  illustration  : — "  The  Eomish 
and  Greek  churches  have  lost  almost  wholly  the 
spirit  of  religion,  and  have  given  themselves  up  to 
outward  rites  and  ceremonies,  many  of  which 
would  be  well  enough,  were  they  the  manifesta- 
tions of  true  piety,  but  are  of  no  worth  when  de- 
signed as  a  substitute  for  it." 

We  have  here  a  remarkable  principle  for  a 
Protestant  writer  to  enunciate.  The  forms  of  the 
Ptomish  and  Greek  churches  would  be  proper  and 
right,  if  they  were  manifestations  of  true  piety ! 
Will  it  be  denied  that  real,  though  mistaken, 
piety  has,  in  a  multitude  of  instances,  manifested 
itself  through  the  forms  of  the  Komish  and  Greek 


16  PREFACE. 

churches  ?  And  if  that  fact  will  sanctify  a  cor- 
rupt form,  there  is  scarcely  a  form  in  use  in  those 
churches,  but  that  may  be  defended  as  innocent 
and  right. 

If  the  present  writer  is  not  mistaken,  we  have 
here  a  glimpse  of  the  real  point  of  the  difficulty 
mentioned  in  the  first  paragraph  quoted  above. 
The  problem  would  seem  to  be^  not  to  ascertain 
precisely  what  the  institutions  of  the  great  Law- 
giver of  the  Church  are,  and  observe  just  those, 
and  no  more ;  but  what  forms  now  in  use,  which 
it  may  be  convenient  to  retain,  even  though  not 
commanded,  are  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  piety ; 
and  how  far  prescribed  forms  may  be  deviated 
from,  when  convenience  may  dictate,  and  still  the 
spirit  of  piety  be  retained. 

Certainly,  if  the  principle  be  a  correct  one,  that 
all  forms  are  admissible  which  are,  or  may  be 
manifestations  of  piety,  no  limit  but  human  in- 
clination, can  be  set  to  additions  to,  and  subtrac- 
tions from,  the  institutions  of  Christ. 

Against  such  a  principle,  the  past  history  of 
the  Church  utters  a  loud  note  of  warning.  There 
was  not  a  corrupt  form  of  mediaeval  Christianity, 
which  did  not,  at  least  in  its  elements,  originate 
in  an  early  period  of  the  church,  as  a  manifesta- 
tion of  piety.     But  corruptions  in  the  forms  acted 


PREFACE.  17 

upon  the  spirit  of  religion,  and  this  again  pro- 
duced a  still  deeper  corruption  in  the  forms ;  and 
thus  these  two,  re-acting  upon  each  other,  by  de- 
grees transformed  the  simple  and  pure  Christianity 
of  the  New  Testament  into  a  confused  medley  of 
Paganism  and  Judaism,  fitly  named  in  prophecy, 
Mystery,  Babylon  the  Great,  the  Mother 
OF  Harlots,  and  Abominations  of  the 
Earth. 

Now  so  long  as  there  are  Christians  who  hold 
views  like  these  in  respect  to  the  forms  of  religion, 
it  is  in  vain  to  hope  that  controversy  in  respect  to 
them  will  cease.  It  may  safely  be  predicted  that 
there  will  never  cease  to  be  Christians,  who  will 
hold  the  law  of  Christ  to  be  of  radical  and  funda- 
mental importance,  even  on  questions  relating  to 
the  forms  of  religion ;  the  more  so,  since  his  law 
clearly  defines  those  forms,  and  he  has  made  obe" 
dience  to  his  commandments  the  indispensable  and 
unqualified  test  of  piety.  There  will  always  be 
Christians,  who  will  hold  this  point ;  and  love  to 
Christ  will  impel  them  to  hold  it  in  a  polemic 
attitude,  so  long  as  there  are  other  Christians, 
who  advocate  views  similar  to  those  here  animad- 
verted upon. 

If  a  word  of  apology  were  due  on  behalf  of  the 
writer,  as  well  as  to  the  reader,  for  the  publication 


18  PREFACE. 

of  another  work  on  Baptism,  this  might  be  deemed 
sufficient. 

Still  the  writer  undertook  the  task  of  preparing 
the  present  work,  not  so  much  from  his  own  con- 
viction of  its  necessity,  as  from  the  suggestion  and 
solicitation  of  brethren  whose  judgment  he  valued 
more  highly  than  his  own.  Those  who  suggested 
its  preparation  expressed  the  conviction,  that  not- 
withstanding much  had  been  published  on  this 
general  subject,  yet  a  concise  and  perspicuous  ex- 
position of  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision,  which 
by  its  brevity  and  comprehensiveness  should  be 
adapted  to  general  circulation,  was  still  a  deside- 
ratum. This  was  the  origin  of  the  first  part  of 
the  following  treatise. 

When  the  first  part  was  completed,  it  appeared 
to  the  writer,  that  the  second  part  was  as  much 
needed  as  the  first.  In  most  of  the  popular 
treatises  upon  Infant  Baptism,  on  both  sides,  the 
historical  argument  is  but  slightly  touched  upon. 

Yet  there  is  no  person  of  ordinary  intelligence^ 
who  is  not  competent  to  form  a  correct  judgment 
for  himself  on  this  historical  question,  if  he  but 
have  the  passages  in  dispute  fairly  before  him. 
And  the  main  design  of  the  second  part  of  the 
following  treatise,  is  to  afibrd  the  common  reader 
the  means  of  forming  for  himself  such  an  inde- 


PREFACE.  19 

pendent  judgment;  the  New  Testament  argument, 
as  properly  preliminary  to  it,  being  first  briefly 
presented.  Accordingly  every  passage  from  the 
early  Christian  writers,  which  is  relied  upon  by 
leading  Pedobaptist  authors  in  proof  of  infant 
baptism,  is  here  quoted  in  full ;  and  every  pass- 
age of  a  contrary  tendency  is  also  quoted  in  full. 
The  common  reader  may  feel  assured  that  this 
little  treatise  furnishes  all  that  is  necessary  to 
form  a  correct  opinion  of  the  value  of  the  histori- 
cal argument  for  infant  baptism.  At  the  same 
time,  to  justify  the  translations  here  given,  with 
persons  who  can  judge  of  their  accuracy,  the  ori- 
ginals of  all  important  words  and  phrases  are 
given,  and  sometimes  the  entire  passage. 

Though  many  of  the  arguments  and  conclusions 
in  the  first  part  have  doubtless  been  published 
before,  still  it  is  believed  that  some  of  them  will 
be  found  entirely  new,  (and  it  is  hoped  not  less 
true,)  and  all  of  them  are,  in  their  main  features, 
with  the  writer,  original ;  the  result  of  his  own 
independent  examination  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
principal  merit  claimed  for  the  second  part,  espe- 
cially the  historical  argument,  is  that  of  a  faithful 
and  accurate  compilation,  grouping  together  the 
results  of  the  most  recent  discussions.  For  its 
accuracy,  it  is  believed  it  may  be  relied  upon.    No 


20  PREFACE. 

important  passage  is  cited  from  the  early  Chris- 
tian writers,  on  the  authority  of  any  popular 
treatise  upon  baptism.  They  are  all  given  on  the 
authority  of  standard  editions  of  standard  writers ; 
— chiefly  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  Ox- 
ford, 1836;  Neander;  Wiggers'  Augustinism  and 
Pelagianism ;  and  other  writers  of  acknowledged 
ability  and  learning  in  standard  religious  quar- 
terlies. The  work  is  enriched  with  several  pas- 
ages  from  the  Fathers  not  to  be  found  in  any 
other  popular  treatise  on  this  subject.  Including 
as  it  does  the  results  of  the  latest  investigations 
into  patristic  lore,  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  Infant 
Baptism,  its  place  perhaps  could  not  be  supplied 
by  any  other  single  work  before  the  public. 

With  the  earnest  prayer  that  this  treatise  may 
do  something  to  establish  scriptural  views  of  the 
ordinances  of  Christ,  and  so  aid,  however  feebly, 
in  bringing  forward  the  day  when  the  watchmen 
shall  lift  up  the  voice  together,  and  see  eye  to 
eye,  it  is  committed  to  the  candid  consideration  of 
the  Christian  public. 

J.  T.  SMITH. 

Sandisfield,  Ms.,  Feb.  1850. 


% 


CONTENTS   OF  PART  I. 


-♦- 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 

The  Question  stated 25 


CHAPTER   II. 

The  Covenant  of  Cikcumcision  made  with  Abra- 
ham AND  his  Natural,  Seed 28 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  a  Conditional  or 
Legal  Covenant. 

The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  distinguished  in  its 
terms  from  the  Covenant  of  Grace. —  When  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  was  revealed  to  Abraham. — 
Paul's  reasoning,  in  Galatians. — The  Pedobaptist 
fallacy  on  this  point,  and  the  key  to  it 32 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  an  essential 
part  of  the  Mosaic  Dispensation 42 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Promises  of  the   Covenant  of  Circumci- 
sion       50 


CHAPTER   VI. 

Circumcision  a  Positive  Ordinance 57 

2* 


22  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   VII. 

PAGE 

The  Uses  of  the  Rite  of  Cikcumcisiox. 

A  seal  of  Abraham's  faith  and  of  its  acceptance. — A 
token  or  visible  sign  of  the  Covenant — A  type  of 
inward  or  spiritual  purity   • 60 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

An  Appaeekt  Exception  to  a  General  Rule. 
Analogy  and  Difference  between  Circu3I- 
cisioN  and  Baptism 68 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Arguments  for  the  Perpetuitt  of  the  Covenant 

[of    CiRCU3ICISION. 

Everlasting  Covenant. — Argument  from  Galatians. — 
The  good  and  the  Avild'olive  tree 74 

CHAPTER   X. 

The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  Abrogated. 

Its  limitation. — Preaching  of  John. — Council  in  Acts. — 
Argument  from  Galatians. — Covenant  of  Circum- 
cision nailed  to  the  Cross,  and  abolished  by  Christ.    85 

CHAPTER   XI. 

CiRCUilCISION  HAS  NO   SUBSTITUTE. 

Dr.  "WHiite's  Argument. — Dr.  Peters'  Argument. — No 
substitute  possible. — Paul's  reasoning  conclusive. 
Silence  of  the  Apostles. — A  decisive  negative-  •  •  •     96 

Recapitulation  and  Result 105 


CONTENTS   OF  PART  11. 


CHAPTER    I. 

PAGE 

The  New  Testament  Argument  for  Infant  Bap- 
tism  CONSIDERED    107 

CHAPTER  n. 

Infant  Baptism,  if  not  commanded  in  the  Word 
OF  God,  is  forbidden 114 

CHAPTER    III. 

Infant  Baptism  directly  opposed  to  the  Baptism  of 
THE  New  Testament. 

The  Commission. — How  Understood  by  the  Apostles 
and  by  the  early  Church. — Infant  Baptism  op- 
posed to  Religious  Liberty 117 

CHAPTER   IV. 
Incidental  Allusions  to  Baptism  in  the  Epistles  127 

CHAPTER   V. 

The  Early  History  of  the  Church  on  Infant 

Baptism. 
Testimony  of  Eusebius,  Mosheim,  and  Neander 132 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Testimony  of  the  early  Fathers,  Clement  of 
EoME,  Barnabas,  Hermas,  Ignatius,  Poly  carp 
and  Justin  Martyr 135 


24  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    VII. 

Supposed   Testimony  of  IpvEn^us    ik  favor    of 
Infant  Baptism 143 

CHAPTER  Vm. 
Testimony  of  Clement  of  Alexandria 154 

CHAPTER   IX. 

Origin  of  Infant  Baptism. — Tertullian  of  Car- 
thage REMONSTRATES  AGAINST  IT 162 

CHAPTER  X. 

OkIGEN  declares  IT  AN  APOSTOLICAL  TRADITION-  •    168 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Infant  Baptism  gradually  introduced. 

Cyprian. — Neo-Csesarean  Council. — Gregory. — Nazian- 
zen. — Bazil. — Augustine. — Pelagius 179 

CHAPTER   XII. 
Recapitulation.— Conclusion 194 


APPENDIX. 


203 


^ 


PART  I. 

THE   COVENANT  OF  CIRCUMCISION. 

It  is  written  that  Abraham  had  two  sons,  the 
one  by  a  bond-maid,  the  other  by  a  free  woman. 

Which  things  are  an  allegory ;  for  these 

are  the  two  Covenants Nevertheless,  what 

saith  the  Scripture  ?  Cast  out  the  bond-woman 
and  her  son :  for  the  sou  of  the  bond-woman 
shall  not  be  heir  with  the  son  of  the  free  woman. 
So  then,  brethren,  we  are  not  children  of  the 
bond-woman,  but  of  the  free.  Gal.  iv.  22,  24, 
80,  31. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   QUESTION    STATED. 

"When  our  blessed  Lord  was  about  to  ascend  to 
heaven,  he  gave  his  apostles  the  gi'eat  charter  on 
which  His  Church,  considered  as  an  external 
organization,  is  founded.  He  commanded  them 
to  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and,  of  the 
tloly  Ghost ;  assuring  them  that  he  that  helieveth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  while  he  that 
believeth  7iot  shall  be  damned.  With  this  charter 
2 


26  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

before  us,  which,  by  its  terms,  is  to  continue  "to 
the  end  of  the  world/^  it  would  seem  incredible 
that  there  should  be  any  dispute  among  Christians 
on  the  question,  To  whom  is  baptism  to  be  ad- 
ministered ?  But  the  great  majority  of  those 
who  bear  the  Christian  name,  not  content  with 
this  plain  law,  have  gone  back  of  it  almost  two 
thousand  years,  to  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision* 
made  with  Abraham,  which,  they  say,  is  the  law 
of  Christian  baptism.  So  that,  before  the  positive 
superstructure  of  Christian  baptism  can  be  reared 
on  the  basis  of  the  Commission,  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  go  through  a  laborious  negative  process,  in 
clearing  away  the  rubbish  of  Jewish  ideas,  which, 
from  the  days  of  Cyprian  of  Caichage,  has  been 

*  It  may  be  necessary  to  state  at  the  outset,  the  reasons 
why  the  specific  title,  "  Covenant  of  Circumcision,"  is  em- 
ployed by  Baptists  generally,  and  throughout  this  work,  in- 
stead of  the  moi-e  generic  title,  "  Abrahamic  Covenant," 
usually  chosen  by  Pedobaptist  writers,  to  describe  the 
transaction  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  1.  It 
is  more  definite.  2  It  assumes  nothing.  3.  It  is  the  Scrip- 
tural title  of  that  transaction. — See  Acts  vii.  8.  4.  The 
title  "  Abrahamic  Covenant,"  belongs  emphatic  ally  ^  accord- 
ing to  the  New  Testament,  to  another,  earlier,  and  infinitely 
more  important  transaction,  recorded  in  the  twelfth  chap- 
ter of  Genesis.  This  last  is  "  the  covenant  confirmed  of  God 
in  Christ,''  with  an  oath,  (Genesis  xxii.  15 — 18  ;  Gala- 
tians  iii.  13 — 18,)  and  in  which  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  are 
interested  forever. — See  Acts  iii.  25.  This  is  the  Covenant 
so  celebrated  by  the  Virgin  Mary,  by  Zacharias,  and  by  all 
the  Apostles,  as  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  and  the 
ground  of  Christian  faith  and  joy.  5.  Any  other  usage  of 
terms  tends  to  confound  ideas  which  are  perfectly  distinct, 
and,  as  Paul  strongly  expresses  it,  to  "  bewitch  "  the  minds 
of  Christians. — Galatians  iii.  1 — 29.  The  reader  will  find 
this  point  very  clearly  explained  and  established  in  the 
following  chapters.  J.  N.  B. 


THE   QUESTION    STATED.  27 

accumulating  about  this  simple  and  beautiful 
Christian  rite.  This,  with  God's  help,  we  shall 
do  in  the  following  pages. 

The  positions  which  I  design  to  bring  to  the 
test  of  God's  word  are  briefly  the  following : 
The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  is  the  Covenant  of 
Grace ;  the  Church  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  identical  with  the  Church  of  Christ  in  the  New. 
The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  therefore,  in  all  its 
essential  particulars,  remains  still  in  force  and 
will  to  the  end  of  time,  its  external  rite,  which 
they  who  maintain  these  positions  call  the  seal  of 
it,  being  exchanged  for  baptism,  which  they  say 
is  now  the  seal  of  it.  Hence,  as  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision was  administered  to  infants,  the  rite 
of  baptism  is  also  to  be  administered  to  infants. 
Hence  also,  as  infant  membership  was  a  well 
established  and  essential  feature  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  it  is  an  equally  essential  feature  of  the 
Christian  Church.* 

To  ascertain  whether  these  positions  are  tena- 
ble, I  propose  to  make  a  careful  examination  of 
the  Covenant  of  Circumcision — to  exhibit  as  con- 
cisely as  possible,  and  yet  with  all  needful  minute- 

*  "  The  Abrahamic  covenant  is  the  platfonn  of  the 
Church  in  all  ages.  It  is  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  its 
most  extensive  signification.  It  is  the  same  under  the 
Christian  that  it  was  under  the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic 
dispensations.  It  includes  believers  and  their  seed,  and 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  is  equally  applicable  to  them 
both.  Baptism,  therefore,  which  is  the  sign  of  the  Chris- 
tian's faith  in  the  new  dispensation,  is  to  be  applied  to  all 
believers  and  to  their  children."  Dr.  White,  of  New  York, 
in  National  Preacher,  Nov.  1846.  See  also  any  of  the  • 
current  Pedobaptist  works. 


28  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

ness,  all  the  light  which  the  Scriptures  cast  upon 
it.  The  examination  will  include  its  nature ;  the 
nature  of  the  blessings  promised  in  it ;  the  nature 
of  its  rite;  the  uses  of  its  rite;  and  the  proof  that 
the  covenant  and  the  rite  are  totally  abrogated, 
neither  having  any  existence^  either  by  itself  or 
by  a  substitute. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   COVENANT    OF    CIRCUMCISION    MADE    WITH 
ABRAHAM   AND    HIS   NATURAL    SEED. 

The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  is  given  at 
length  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  I 
quote  the  first  sixteen  verses,  with  the  nineteenth 
and  twenty-second. 

"  And  when  Abram  was  ninety  years  old  and 
nine,  the  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and  said  unto 
him,  I  am  the  Almighty  God  :  walk  before  me,  and 
be  thou  perfect.  And  I  will  make  my  Covenant 
with  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly. 

^^  And  Abram  fell  on  his  face  :  and  God  talked 
with  him,  saying,  As  for  me,  behold,  my  covenant 
is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many 
nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be 
called  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham : 
for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee. 
And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I 
will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come 
out  of  thee.     And  I  will  establish  my  covenant 


THE   COVENANT   QUOTED.  29 

between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in 
their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to 
be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. 
And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting 
possession ;  and  I  will  be  their  God. 

"And  God  said  unto  Abrahftm,  Thou  shalt 
keep  my  covenant  therefore,  thou  and  thy  seed 
after  thee,  in  their  generations.  This  is  my  cove- 
nant which  ye  shall  keep,  between  me  and  you, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee  :  every  man-child  among 
you  shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circum- 
cise the  flesh  of  your  foreskin ;  and  it  shall  be  a 
token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And 
he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised 
among  you,  every  man-child  in  your  generations ; 
he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with 
money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy  seed. 
He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is 
bought  with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circum- 
cised :  and  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant.  And  the  uncircum- 
cised  man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not 
circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  ofi"  from  his 
people  :  he  hath  broken  my  covenant. 

"  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  As  for  Sarai 
thy  wife,  thou  shalt  not  call  her  name  Sarai,  but 
Sarah  shall  her  name  be.  And  I  will  bless  her, 
and  give  thee  a  son  also  of  her  :  yea,  I  will  bless 
her,  and  she  shall  be  a  mother  of  nations ;  kings 

of  people  shall  be  of  her And  God  said, 

Sarah  thy  wife  shall  bear  thee  a  son  indeed,  and 

thou  shalt  call  his  name  Isaac :  and  I  will  establish 

2* 


30  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUaiCISION. 

my  covenant  with  him  for  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant, and  with  his  seed  after  him My 

covenant  will  I  establish  with  Isaac,  which  Sarah 
shall  bear  unto  thee,  at  this  set  time  in  the  next 
year." 

If  a  fair  interpretation  of  language  can  estab- 
lish any  point,  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was 
made  with  Abraham  and  his  natural  seed  only.* 
All  the  expressions  in  vs.  2-6,  in  which  God 
promises  him  a  numerous  posterity,  prove  that 
he  is  speaking  of  a  natural  posterity.  "  I  will 
multipl)/  thee  exceedingly."  "I  will  mahe  thee 
exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  will  make  nations  of 
thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee^  The 
declaration  of  Grod  is  that  he  will  make  a  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  including  also  that  promised 
posterity.  '■'•  I  will  establish  my  covenant  with 
thee  and  tli.y  seed  after  thee  in  their  genera- 
tions." This  language  certainly  indicates  natu- 
ral seed.  If  it  be  said  that  the  language,  by  a 
double  sense,  (a  scheme  of  interpretation  now 
generally  admitted  to  be  entirely  arbitrary  and 
fanciful)  includes  both  Abraham's  natural  pos- 
terity and  his  children  by  faith,  still  that  will 
not  help  the  case  of  infant  baptism.  Unconscious 
infants  are  children  by  faith  of  nobody.  But  our 
brethren,  in  order  to  get  any  plausible  support  of 
infant  baptism  here,  are  obliged  to  interpret  these 
expressions,  not  merely  in  a  double,  but  in  a 
quadruple  sense.     They  first  find  under  the  word 

*  Servants  and  proselytes  were  incorporated  only  as 
parts  of  the  family  and  nation,  and,  as  such,  shared  in  all 
the  privileges  of  this  covenant.  j.  n.  b. 


COMPOUND   DOUBLE    SENSE.  81 

"seed"  in  this  covenant  the  two  senses,  natural 
seed,  and  children  by  faith.  Then  they  take  the 
second  of  those  senses  and  subdivide  that  into 
another  double  sense,  viz.  believers  and  their 
natural  seed.  That  I  may  be  clearly  understood, 
I  will  represent  this  to  the  eye.     In  Gen.  xvii., 

(-1.  Abraham's  natural  posterity. 
^=W  His  cMldren  ,,  fa,th.  ={1;  S'iSura.  seed. 

A  double  sense  in  interpreting  prophecy  has 
been  very  popular,  but  that  class  of  expositors 
is  nearly  or  quite  extinct.  Swedenborgians  in- 
terpret the  entire  Scriptures,  if  I  am  not  mistaken, 
by  a  triple  or  threefold  sense ;  but  of  a  quadruple 
sense,  or  more  properly  speaking,  a  compound 
double  sense,  1  believe  we  have  no  example  except 
in  the  Pedobaptist  interpretation  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcision. 

If  we  interpret  this  covenant  according  to  the 
obvious  import  of  the  language,  as  well  as  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  on  which  Paul  explains  the 
other  promises  made  to  Abraham,  all  notions  of 
a  double  sense,  whether  simple  or  compound,  will 
be  excluded.  In  Gal.  iii.  16,  Paul,  quoting  the 
great  new  covenant  promise  from  Gen.  xxii.  18, 
expressly  affirms  that  the  word  "  seed"  in  that 
promise  is  used  in  but  a  single  sense.  I  quote 
from  Macknight's  translation.  "  He  doth  not 
say.  And  in  seeds,  as  concerning  many,  but  as 
concerning  one  person,  and  in  thy  seed,  who  is 
Christ."  So  also  in  this  covenant,  if  the  natural 
seed  are  mentioned,  the  spiritual  are  not;  and  if 
the  spiritual  are,  the  natural  are  not. 


32  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

The  verses  quoted  from  the  latter  part  of  Gen. 
xvii.  render  it  still  more  clear,  that  Abraham's 
natural  posterity  alone  are  mentioned  in  this 
covenant.  In  the  16th  verse  it  is  declared  that 
Sarah  shall  have  a  son;  that  she  shall  be  a 
mother  of  nations,  and  kings  shall  he  of  her  ;  so 
that  whoever  the  seed  were,  that  were  promised 
to  Abraham  in  this  covenant,  they  were  to  be 
descended  from  Sarah.  But  Abraham's  spiritual 
seed  are  descended,  not  by  natural  generation, 
from  Sarah,  but  by  a  spiritual  birth  from  Christ. 
^'  If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed."  Again,  in  vs.  19  and  21,  the  promise  is 
repeated  in  relation  to  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and 
Abraham  is  expressly  told  that  the  seed,  with 
whom  God's  covenant  is  established,  is  his  natu- 
ral posterity  as  descended  from  Isaac. 


CHAPTER  ni. 


OR  LEGAL  COVENANT. 


The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  so  far  from 
being  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  is,  as  I  shall  now 
show,  both  in  its  form  and  spirit,  conditional, 
which  is  the  very  essence  of  legality.  God,  in 
the  first  place,  declares  what  blessings  he  will  be- 
stow upon  Abraham's  posterity,  and  then  states 
the  condition  upon  which  he  will  bestow  them. 
That  condition  is,  that  they  observe  faithfully  the 


TERMS   OF   THE   COVENANT   OF   GRACE.       33 

law  of  circumcision.  The  language  is,  If  you 
keep  this  covenant,  (which  in  respect  to  its  pre- 
scribed rite  was  a  law,)  you  shall  receive  these 
blessings ;  otherwise  you  shall  not  receive  them, 
but  shall  be  cut  off  from  your  people.  Other 
conditions  were  afterwards  added,  as  will  be  shown 
in  the  proper  place.  Now  this  is  precisely  the  legal 
spirit, — the  spirit  of  the  old  covenant,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  spirit  of  faith,  the  spirit  of  the  new 
— as  Paul  describes  it  in  Gal,  iii.  11,  12  :  '^  The 
just  shall  live  by  faith.  And  the  law  is  not  of 
faith ;  but  the  man  that  cloeth  them  shall  live  in 
them." 

The  legal  spirit  is  uniformly  described  by  Paul, 
as  a  spirit  of  bondage.  And  in  remonstrating 
with  the  G-alatians  against  the  observance  of  cir- 
cumcision, (Gal.  iv.  1-3,)  he  exhorts  them  not 
to  be  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage. 
So  Peter  in  Acts  xv.  10,  calls  circumcision  "  a 
yoke,  which  neither  our  fathers,  nor  we,  were  able 
to  bear."  The  covenant  of  circumcision  is  thus, 
in  its  very  nature  and  essence,  opposed  to  the 
covenant  of  grace,  as  any  one  may  see  by  compar- 
ing the  two  together.  "  Behold  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah. 
Not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with 
their  fathers  in  the  day  when  I  took  them  by  the 
hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  be- 
cause they  continued  not  in  my  covenant,  and  I 
regarded  them  not,  saith  the  Lord.  For  this  is 
the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of 
Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord  :  I  will  put 


34  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  tliem  in  their 
hearts ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people.  And  they  shall  not  teach 
every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  bro- 
ther, saying,  Know  the  Lord :  for  all  shall  know 
me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  For  I  will  be 
merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins 
and  their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more.'' 
Heb.  viii.  8-12.  Here  are  no  conditions.  It  is 
not  IF.  It  is  a  positive,  unconditional  promise ; 
"  Iivill  put  my  laics  into  their  minds — I  will  he  to 
them  a  Gody  and  they  shall  he  to  me  a  peopled 

If  it  be  said  that  New  Covenant  blessings  are 
conditional,  their  bestowment  depending  on  the 
exercise  of  repentance  and  faith,  I  answer,  re- 
pentance and  faith  are  not  conditions  of  the 
bestowment  of  these  blessings,  in  the  mind  of 
God.  If  there  were  any  conditions  in  the  mind 
of  God,  they  would  have  been  stated  in  the  cove- 
nant itself,  as  they  were  in  the  old  covenant.  In 
that  covenant  there  were  conditions,  and  that  is 
the  reason  why  it  was  abrogated.  Salvation  could 
never  be  certain  to  men,  so  long  as  it  depended  on 
exercises  or  works  to  be  performed  by  them  as 
conditions,  because  it  could  never  be  certain  that 
men  would  perform  those  conditions.  Christ  is, 
accordingly,  the  Mediator  of  a  better  covenant, 
established  upon  better  promises,  (Heb.  viii.  6,) 
i.  e.  promises  without  conditions.  Salvation  is, 
therefore,  just  as  certain  to  all  who  are  interested 
in  the  new  covenant,  as  the  oath  and  promise  of 
God  can  make  it.  And  this  is  the  precise  distinc- 
tion between  the  Old  and  New  covenant — what- 


NEW   COVENANT   NOT   CONDITIONAL.         35 

ever  is  conditional  in  its  very  terms  pertains  to 
the  Old  Covenant,  or  the  Law ;  whatever  is  uncon- 
ditional in  its  termS;  pertains  to  the  New  Covenant, 
or  the  Gospel. 

If  it  be  asked,  In  what  sense  then  are  repent- 
ance and  faith  conditions  of  salvation,  I  answer, 
they  are  conditions  of  the  CONSCIOUS  reception 
hy  us  of  the  new  covenant  hlessingsj  which  stand 
directly  connected  with  their  exercise.  But  they 
are  not  conditions  of  their  bestowment  by  God, 
because  repentance  and  faith  are  included  among 
the  blessings  secured  by  the  new  covenant.  When 
God  puts  his  laws  into  the  mind  and  writes  them 
in  the  heart,  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  repent- 
ance, faith,  and  everything  else  which  depends 
on  a  holy  temper  of  heart,  be  in  exercise.  But 
we  can  have  no  consciousness,  or  evidence  of  an 
interest  in  this  new  covenant,  if  we  are  not  in  the 
exercise  of  repentance,  faith,  and  a  holy  temper 
of  heart.  Hence  repentance  and  faith  are  said  to 
be,  to  us,  conditions  of  salvation. 

The  covenant  of  grace  was  revealed  to  Abra- 
ham before  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  made 
with  him,  and  is  always  confounded  by  Pedobap- 
tist  writers  with  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  It 
is  only  by  confounding  together  totally  distinct 
transactions  in  the  history  of  Abraham,  that  they 
are  able  to  impart  a  degree  of  plausibility  to  their 
argument  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  And 
yet  it  is  strange  that  any  person  of  ordinary  clear- 
ness of  sight,  can  fail  to  see  that  this  scheme  of 
interpretation  makes  confusion  and  absurdity  of 
Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.     No  man  can 


36  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

interpret  that  epistle  on  modern  Pedobaptist  prin- 
ciples, without  representing  Paul  as  commending 
and  exalting  as  the  ground  of  the  Christian's 
hope,  what,  in  the  next  breath,  he  denounces  as 
subversive  of  Christianity,  and  an  adherence  to, 
as  falling  from  grace. 

The  surest  way  to  unravel  this  web  of  fallacies, 
will  be  to  go  to  this  same  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  where  we  shall  find  the  distinction,  between 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  and  the  covenant  of 
grace,  clearly  defined. 

The  covenant  of  grace  revealed  to  Abraham,  is 
referred  to  in  Gal.  iii.  8,  "  And  the  Scripture  fore- 
seeing that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  by  faith, 
preached  the  gospel  before  to  Abraham,  saying, 
In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed."  Now  let  it 
be  observed,  God  did  not  make  this  promise  to 
Abraham  when  he  made  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision with  him.  It  is  quoted,  not  from  Gen.  xvii., 
but  from  Gen.  xii.  3,  and  was  spoken  to  Abraham 
when  he  was  called  to  go  into  Canaan.  It  is  further 
spoken  of  in  Gal.  iii.  15-17,  which,  as  conveying 
with  more  accuracy  the  sense  of  the  original,  I  shall 
quote  from  Macknight's*  translation.  "  Brethren, 
1  speak  after  the  manner  of  men ;  no  one  setteth 
aside,  or  altereth  a  ratified  covenant,  though  but 
of  a  man.  Now  to  Abraham  were  the  promises 
spoken,  and  to  his  seed.  He  doth  not  say.  And 
in  seeds,  as  concerning  many,  but  as  concerning 
one  person,  and  in  thy  seed,  who  is  Christ."     I 


*  A  well  known  Presbyterian  Commentator  on  the  Epis- 
tles. 


GALATIANS   HL  37 

add  the  following  from  his  note  on  the  passage. 
" '  He  doth  not  say,  And  in  seeds,'  so  f otj  GHi^^aci 
should  be  translated,  the  i3reposition  iv  being  un- 
derstood, as  is  plain  from  the  promise  itself,  Gen. 
xxii.  18  :  'And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  be  blessed.'  The  promise  to  Abra- 
ham is  that  made.  Gen.  xii.  3,  '  In  thee  shall  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed.'  The  pro- 
mise to  his  seed  is  that  recorded,  Gen.  xxii.  18. 
See  Gal.  iii.  19.  Now  since  by  the  oath  which 
God  sware  to  Abraham,  after  he  had  laid  Isaac 
upon  the  altar,  both  promises  were  ratified,  the 
Apostle  reasons  justly  when  he  says  both  must  be 
fulfilled."  To  these  remarks  we  may  add,  that 
since  these  two  promises  were  so  related  to  each 
other  as  to  be  virtually  one  and  identical,  Paul 
reasons  upon  them  as  one,  and  in  the  subsequent 
verses  speaks  of  them  jointly,  in  the  singular 
number,  as  "  the  covenant,"  and  ^'  the  promise." 
But  nothing  is  said  here  of  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision. This  language  cannot  be  found  in 
Gen.  xvii.  It  can  have  no  connection  with  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  because  in  that  the  pro- 
mises are  made,  as  has  been  shown,  to  the  natural 
posterity  of  Abraham,  or  as  Paul  expresses  it 
here,  to  "  the  seeds,  as  spoken  concerning  many," 
while  here  they  are  made  to  Him  who  is  pre-emi- 
nently the  Seed,  that  is  Christ. 

That  these  promises,  in  Gen.  xii.  3,  and  xxii. 
18,  referred  to  in  Gal.  iii.  8,  14-17,  have  no  con- 
nection with  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  appears 
still  clearer,  if  possible,  from  the  17th  verse,  which 
I  will  also  quote  from  Macknight's  translation  : 


38  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

"  Wherefore  this  I  affirm,  that  the  covenant  which 
was  afore  ratified  by  Grod  concerning  Christ,  the 
law,  which  was  made  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  cannot  annul,  so  as  to  abolish  the  pro- 
mise." That  it  might  be  perfectly  understood  that 
there  is  no  reference  here  to  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, the  Apostle  is  careful  to  tell  us  pre- 
cisely when  this  covenant  was  made — 430  years 
before  the  giving  of  the  law.  It  is  agreed  on  all 
hands,  that  this  period  of  430  years  carries  us 
back  to  the  time  when  God  called  Abraham  out 
of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  when  he  made  the  promise 
in  Gen.  xii.  3,  identified  by  the  Apostle  with  the 
one  recorded  in  Gen.  xxii.  18.  The  chronology 
may  be  stated  thus :  Abraham  was  75  years  old 
when  this  promise  was  made  to  him ;  Gen.  xii.  4. 
He  was  100  years  old  when  Isaac  was  born;  xxi.  5. 
Isaac  was  60  years  old  when  Jacob  was  born ; 
XXV.  26.  Jacob  was  130  years  old  when  he  went 
down  into  Egypt;  xlvii.  9.     We  have  then 

From  the  Call  of  Abraham  to  the  birth  of  Isaac,   25  years' 
"         birth  of  Isaac  to  the  birth  of  Jacob,         60     " 
"        birth  of  Jacob  to  the  going  down  to 

Egypt,  130    «. 

Total  sojourn  in  Canaan,  215     "  . 

According  to  Ex.  xii.  40,  the  entire  sojourn  in 
Canaan  and  Egypt  was  430  years.  Subtracting 
from  the  entire  sojourn,  the  215  years  sojourn  in 
Canaan,  and  we  have  215  years  for  the  sojourn  in 
Egypt.  Adding  these  two  together,  we  have  430 
years  from  the  Call  of  Abraham  to  the  giving  of 
the  law.  The  covenant,  therefore,  here  spoken  of, 


THE  430  YEARS  BEFORE  THE  LAW.    89 

must  have  been  revealed  to  Abraham  when  he 
was  75  years  old.  But  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision was  made  when  Abraham  was  99  years  old; 
(Gen.  xvii.  1.)  24  years  later,  ^.  e.  406  years 
before  the  law,  instead  of  430. 

Paul  then  has  expressly  affirmed  that  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  is  not  the  covenant  of  grace, 
by  stating  the  precise  time  when  the  covemmt  of 
grace  was  revealed  to  Abraham,  But  if  he  had 
not  so  carefully  distinguished  them,  that  must  be 
an  exceedingly  careless  reader  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  who  could  suppose  Paul  guilty  of 
so  glaring  an  inconsistency  as  the  confounding  of 
these  two  covenants  would  involve.  Our  brethren 
wonder  that  we  cannot  believe  that  Paul  speaks 
of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  as  a  preaching  of 
the  gospel  to  Abraham,  (Gal.  iii.  8,) — as  a  cove- 
nant confirmed  of  God  in  Christ  which  the  law 
could  not  disannul,  (v.  17,) — and  the  privilege  of 
administering  circumcision,  or  a  substitute  to  the 
children  of  believers,  as  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
come  on  the  Gentiles,  (v.  14,) — and  all  that  while 
he  expostulates  with  the  Galatians  as  foolish  and 
bewitched  for  listening  to  teachers  who  were  set- 
ting forth  this  same  law  of  circumcision  as  a  part 
of  the  gospel,  (v.  1,) — declaring  that  by  being 
circumcised  they  are  entangling  themselves  in  a 
yoke  of  bondage,  that  Christ  would  profit  them 
nothing,  that  they  would  be  debtors  to  do  the 
whole  law,  and  fallen  from  grace  !  (chap.  v.  1-4.) 
And  we,  with  equal  sincerity,  wonder  how  they 
can  believe  all  this. 

No  one,  I  trust,  will  question  that  Paul  refers 


40  COVENANT   OF  CIRCUMCISION. 

to  the  covenant  of  grace  in  Heb.  viii.  8-12, — » 
"  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel, 
and  the  house  of  Judah,"  &c.  But  if  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  is  the  covenant  of  grace,  the 
statement  in  Gen.  xvii.  must  be  precisely  equiva- 
lent to  the  statement  in  Heb.  viii.,  and  the  bless- 
ings in  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  stated  in  Heb. 
viii.,  are  likewise  secured  to  all  who  were  interested 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  in  Gen.  xvii.  And 
all  who  belonged  to  the  nation  of  Israel,  who  were 
duly  circumcised,  and  observed  the  Mosaic  ritual, 
(which  was  purely  an  outward  service,)  were  in- 
terested in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  were 
entitled  to  all  the  blessings  secured  by  it.  The 
blessings  secured  by  the  covenant  of  grace  are, 
"  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write 
them  in  their  hearts — all  shall  know  me,  from 
the  least  to  the  greatest — I  will  be  merciful  to 
their  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins  and  their 
iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more."  If  then 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of 
grace,  these  great  saving  blessings  were  pledged 
and  secured  to  every  one  who  was  a  Jew  out- 
wardly, and  who  yielded  obedience  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  whatever  might  be  his  character  in  respect 
to  grace  and  faith.  And  if  that  covenant  remains 
in  force,  and  believers  with  their  seed  enjoy  its 
provisions,  every  child,  duly  baptized,  has  a  cer- 
tainty of  salvation  as  absolute  and  unqualified  as 
the  great  promises  of  the  New  Covenant,  which 
are  yea  and  amen  in  Christ  Jesus,  can  give. 
Let  me  ask  the  careful  attention  of  my  reader 


PEDOBAPTIST   FALLACY.  41 

to  what  I  have  proved  in  this  section  from  Gal. 
iii. ;  for  it  is  the  key  to  the  Pedobaptist  fallacy  on 
this  subject.  The  fallacy  does  not  consist  in  the 
claim  that  there  is  an  Abrahamic  covenant  which 
is  the  Covenant  of  G-race — for  the  Apostle  shows 
that  there  is — but  in  the  assumption  that  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  is  that  covenant,  or  any 
part  of  it.  They  assume  that  all  the  covenant 
or  promissory  transactions,  recorded  in  the  history 
of  Abraham,  are  one  covenant.  Assume,  I  say  : 
we  search  their  writings  in  vain  for  any  proof. 
On  this  one  point,  where  proof  is  most  needed,  it 
is  utterly  wanting ;  and  without  it,  their  argument 
is  a  mere  collocation  of  bewitching  Jewish  fancies. 
I  have  shown  that  Paul  recognizes  the  pro- 
mises recorded  in  Gen.  xii.  3,  xxii.  18,  as  iden- 
tical, as  one  covenant,  the  covenant  of  grace,  and 
the  foundation  of  Abraham's  faith,  and  of  the 
ftiith  of  all  believers.  But  we  search  the  New 
Testament  in  vain,  for  any  such  recognition  o/ 
any  promise   recorded  in  Gen.   xvii.*     On    the 

*  It  may  be  tliouglit  that  the  passage  quoted  by  Paul  in 
Rom.  iv,  17,  "  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations," 
is  an  exception  to  this  remark.  But  if  it  be,  the  exception 
is  to  be  taken  as  establishing  the  general  rule.  For,  1.  It 
is  found,  Gen.  xvii.  4,  5,  before  the  Covenant  of  Circumcis- 
ion is  introduced.  2.  It  appears  to  refer  to  Avhat  had  been 
done  already  by  virtue  of  the  preceding  covenants,  Gen.  xii. 
and  XV.  3.  If  any  contend  that  it  did  refer  to  the  effect  of 
the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  in  making  Abraham  the 
father  of  many  circumcised  nations,  (as  the  Israelites, 
Edomites,  Midianites,  &c.)  it  is  clear  the  Apostle  quotes  it  in 
another  sense,  for  he  applies  it  to  Abraham  as  "  the  father 
of  all  them  believe,  thoiiyh  they  be  not  circumcised.''^  In  this 
view  of  the  passage,  infants  are  by  the  very  terms  excluded, 
until  they  themselves  become  believers.        ^       j.  n.  b. 

4 


42  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

contrary,  I  have  shown  that  the  Covenant  of  Cir- 
cumcision is  in  form  and  spirit  legal — the  spirit 
of  the  old  covenant.  And  not  only  does  Paul 
maintain  a  distinction  between  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  and  the  other  promises  given  to 
Abraham  \  they  are  elsewhere  distinguished  in 
the  New  Testament.  Stephen,  in  Acts  vii.,  after 
stating  in  chronological  order  the  Call  of  Abra- 
ham, and  the  transaction  recorded  in  Gen.  xv., 
speaks  of  this  as  a  distinct  thing — ^'•And  he  gave 
him  the  covenant  of  circumcision.''  This  point 
will  be  rendered  still  more  clear  in  the  next 
chapter. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  COVENANT  OF   CIRCUMCISION  AN  ESSENTIAL 
PART  OF  THE  MOSAIC  DISPENSATION. 

The  question  now  before  us  is,  whether  the  Cov- 
enant of  Circumcision  is  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
1  have  shown  that  it  is  in  its  form  and  spirit  legal, 
and  is  distinguished  in  the  New  Testament  from 
the  covenant  of  grace.  I  shall  now  show  that  it 
is  an  essential  part  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  that 
it  must  consequently  pertain  to  the  covenant  of 
works,  that  is,  the  old  covenant. 

The  church  of  the  old  covenant  is  what  Stephen, 
in  Acts  vii.  38,  calls  the  church  in  the  wilderness, 
at  the  Mount  Sinai.     Its  foundation  was  laid  in 


A   PART   OF   MOSAIC   LAW.  43 

Abraham  when  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was 
made;  its  organization  was  complete  when  its 
ritual  and  service  were  fully  appointed  at  Mount 
Sinai.  The  covenant  of  circumcision  is,  therefore, 
the  old  covenant.  It  must  be  either  the  old  or 
the  new ;  for,  let  it  be  particularly  observed,  while 
the  Apostle  frequently  uses  the  word  covenant  in 
the  plural  number,  he  never  specifies  more  than 
two.  "  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the 
law,  do  ye  not  hear  the  law  ?  For  it  is  written 
that  Abraham  had  two  sous;  the  one  by  a  bond- 
maid, the  other  by  a  free  woman.  Which  things 
are  an  allegory  :  for  these  are  the  two  covenants  ; 
the  one  from  the  Mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth 
to  bondage,  which  is  Hagar.  For  this  Hagar  is 
Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jeru- 
salem which  now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her 
children.  But  Jerusalem  which  is  above,  is  free, 
which  is  the  mother  of  us  all.  Nevertheless, 
what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Cast  out  the  bond- 
woman and  her  son  ;  for  the  son  of  the  bond- wo- 
man shall  not  be  heir  with  the  son  of  the  free 
woman.  So  then,  brethren,  we  are  not  children 
of  the  bond- woman,  but  of  the  free.  Stand  fast, 
therefore,  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with 
the  yoke  of  bondage.  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto 
you,  that  if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit 
you  nothing.  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man 
that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the 
whole  law."— Gal.  iv.  21,  22,  24-26,  30,  31 ;  and 
v.  1-3.  We  have  here  circumcision  designated  as 
the  yoke  of  bondage,  brought  under  the  head  of 


44  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

Hagar,  the   bond-woman,  and  of  Mount  Sinai. 
Consequently  the  covenant  or  law  of  circumcision 
is  identified  with  that  which  is  from  Mount  Sinai. 
So  far  as  I   can  understand   their   positions, 
Pedobaptist  writers  themselves  affirm  the  identity 
of  the    covenant   of  circumcision  with    that   of 
Mount  Sinai.     They  always  do  this  when  they 
wish  to  prove  that  the  church  is  the  same  in  all 
ages  of  the  world,  fi-om  Abraham  down.     The 
writer*  of  a  work  now  before  me,  says,  "  It  will 
not  be  disputed  by  any,  I  trust,  that  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Jewish  church  was  the  same  substan- 
tially without  variation,  from  the  first  existence  of 
the  nation  till  Christ's  time,  as  when  first  laid  in 
the  family  of  Abraham.    Upon  this  point  I  never 
heard  any  controversy.     It  is  true,  at  the  time 
Moses  led  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt,  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  Passover  was  instituted,  but  no  alter- 
ation was  made,  which  affected  the  foundation  of 
the  church  itself.    Soon  after  this,  the  ceremonial 
law  was  introduced,  and  the  priesthood  organized, 
hut  all  rested  on  the  foundation  of  the  covenant 
with  Abraham.     Their  worship  also   underwent 
changes  as  to  the  mode  and  form ;  but  nothing 
was  done,  which  made  the  church  different  in  its 
nature,  from  what  it  was  when  its  foundation  was 
first  laid."     If  the  introduction  of  the  Passover 
and  the  ceremonial  law,  and  the  organization  of 
the  priesthood,  were  no  alterations  which  made  the 
church  difi"erent  in  its  nature,  or  afi'ected  the  foun- 
dation of  the  church,  but  all  rested  still  on  the 

•  Rev.  David  Porter,  D.  D.,  in  "A  Dissertation  on  Chris- 
tian Baptism." 


,   PEDOBAPTIST   POSITIONS.  45 

foundation  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  no- 
thing can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  is  identical  with  that  at  Mount 
Sinai. 

It  sometimes,  however,  better  suits  the  views  of 
Pedobaptist  writers  to  claim  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  that  of 
Sinai.  They  then  tell  us,  that  circumcision  can 
be  no  part  of  the  law  of  Moses,  because  it  was 
instituted  400  years  before  the  law.  And  yet 
they  tell  us  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  Grospel,  though 
it  was  instituted  almost  2000  years  before  the 
introduction  of  the  Gospel  dispensation !  Was 
not  the  Passover  a  part  of  the  ceremonial  law  ? 
and  yet  it  was  certainly  instituted  before  the 
giving  of  the  law. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  and  that  made  at  Mount  Sinai  may 
be  identical,  though  they  were  chronologically 
400  years  apart.  The  old  covenant  church  was 
to  be  a  National  Church,  involving  a  showy  and 
expensive  ritual.  It  could  not,  therefore,  be  fully 
organized,  until  the  descendants  of  Abraham  were 
increased  to  a  nation,  and  were  sufficiently  wealthy 
to  support  its  rites  of  worship.  And  yet,  if  it 
had  not  an  incipient  organization  in  the  family 
of  Abraham,  so  far  as  would  suffice  to  keep  his 
descendants  distinct  from  other  nations,  there 
never  would  have  been  any  materials  from  which 
to  organize  it.  The  covenant  was  accordingly 
made  with  Abraham,  including  his  posterity ;  in 
which  the  only  condition  then  required  of  them, 

was  the  observance  of  the  law  of  circumcision. 
4* 


46  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

But  the  fact  that  the  descendants  of  Abraham 
were,  by  these  means,  placed  under  a  peculiar 
relation  to  Grod,  gave  him  the  right  to  superadd 
other  conditions,  whenever  it  should  be  necessary 
in  order  to  fulfill  the  original  design  of  the  cove- 
nant. That  necessity  appeared  when  the  Israel- 
ites made  their  exodus  from  Egypt-  and  then, 
when  the  original  covenant  was  renewed,  the  other 
conditions  were  added,  to  which  also  Israel  gave 
their  unanimous  consent.  This  renewal  of  the 
covenant,  and  the  complete  organization  of  the  old 
covenant  church,  is  called  the  covenant  from 
Mount  Sinai ;  identical^  as  we  see^  with  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision. 

I  will  now  give  some  direct  testimony,  from  the 
Scriptures,  to  the  proper  identity  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  with  that  from  5lount  Sinai. 

In  John  vii.  22,  23,  Christ  says,  "  Moses 
therefore  gave  you  circumcision,  (not  because  it 
is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers).^'  How  did 
Moses  give  them  circumcision,  if  it  were  not  an 
essential  part  of  the  law  which  he  gave  ?  It  was 
originally  given  to  Abraham,  and  came  down 
from  him.  If  the  observance  of  circumcision 
were  not  founded  on  a  covenant  identical  with 
the  one  from  Sinai,  and  if  it  were  not  of  the 
same  nature,  and  so  incorporated  into  and  en- 
forced by  the  law  of  Moses,  Moses  could  with 
no  sort  of  propriety,  be  said  to  have  given  them 
circumcision.  The  next  verse  continues — "  If  a 
man  on  the  Sabbath  day  receive  circumcision, 
that  the  law  of  Moses  should  not  be  bi^oken,"  &c. 
A  neglect  to  attend  to  circumcision  clearly  could 


DIRECT   SCRIPTURE   TESTIMONY.  47 

not  be  an  infraction  of  the  law  of  Moses,  unless 
the  law  which  required  it  were  a  part  of  the  law 
of  Moses.  Our  Saviour,  in  affirming  that  the 
law  of  circumcision  is  a  part  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
fully  establishes  the  identity  of  the  covenant  on 
which  it  was  founded  with  that  which  was  from 
Mount  Sinai. 

Acts  XV.  1,  5.  ''  And  certain  brethren  which 
came  down  from  Judea,  taught  the  brethren 
and  said,  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the 
manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved.^^ — "  But 
there  rose  up  certain  of  the  Pharisees  which  be- 
lieved, saying,  that  it  was  needful  to  circumcise 
iheni  and  to  command  them  to  keep  the  laiv  of 
Moses.''  Why  is  Moses  referred  to  here,  and  cir- 
cumcision joined  with  keeping  the  law  of  Moses, 
if  it  is  not  a  part  of  that  law  ?  It  is  easy  to  see 
what  was  the  conception  of  these  disciples  in 
regard  to  this  point,  and  that  their  conception 
was  correct  is  clear,  both  from  the  words  of 
Christ  quoted  above,  and  from  the  fact  that  no 
apostle  in  that  council  questioned  its  correctness. 

Acts  xxi.  20,  21.  "Thou  seest,  brother,  how 
many  thousands  of  Jews  there  are  which  believe  ^ 
and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law.  And  they 
are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou  teachest  all  the 
Jews  which  are  among  the  Gentiles,  to  forsake 
Moses,  saying  that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise 
their  children,  neither  to  walk  after  the  customs." 
According  to  James  and  the  Elders  of  Jerusalem, 
teaching  Jews  not  to  circumcise  their  children, 
was  teaching  them  to  forsake  Moses.    How  could 


48  COVENANT   OP   CIRCUMCISION. 

this  be,  if  circumcision  was  not  a  very  essential 
part  of  the  law  of  Moses  ? 

Rom.  ii.  25.  "For  circumcision  verily  pro- 
fiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law.''  The  argument  of 
Paul  evidently  is,  that  keeping  a  part  of  the  law 
will  avail  nothing,  unless  the  whole  is  observed. 
(James  ii.  10.)  If  you  are  circumcised  you 
keep  a  part  of  the  law;  which  could  not  be  true, 
unless  its  observance  were  required  by  the  law. 

G-al.  V.  2,  3.  "Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you, 
that  if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you 
nothing."  Why?  Because  the  whole  Mosaic 
ritual  was  abolished  for  Christ  to  set  up  his 
Church.  Now  as  the  Mosaic  ritual  and  Christianity 
were  antagonistical,  he  who  received  any  part  of 
that  ritual  as  of  binding  force  or  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, must  first  forsake  Christ,  and  Christ  would 
profit  him  nothing.  But  Paul  affirms  that  this 
would  be  so,  if  one  were  circumcised;  which  could 
not  be,  if  circumcision  were  not  a  part  of  the  Mo- 
saic ritual.  "  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man 
that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the 
whole  law."  This  plainly  implies  that  circumci- 
sion is  a  part  of  the  law,  of  which  it  takes  the 
residue  to  make  the  wliole.  Nothing  can  be  more 
conclusive  to  the  point  before  us,  than  this  whole 
passage,  extending  from  the  21st  verse  of  the  4th 
chapter  to  the  4th  verse  of  the  5th  chapter.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  two  covenants,  the  one  from  Mount 
Sinai,  the  yoke  of  bondage,  typified  by  Hagar  the 
bond-woman,  the  other  Jerusalem  from  above 
which  is  free,  typified  by  Sarah  and  Isaac;  and 
classes  circumcision  under  the  former,  or  the  old 


OLD   AND   NEW   COVENANTS.  49 

covenant.  Indeed,  through  this  whole  Epistle, 
circumcision  is  put  as  the  representative  and  syno- 
nym of  the  Mosaic  law;  an  incontrovertible  proof 
that  Paul  must  have  regarded  it  as  a  very  essen- 
tial part  of  the  law. 

I  have  now  fulfilled  the  promise  I  made  in  the 
first  chapter,  to  examine  the  nature  of  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision.  I  have  shown  that  it  has 
no  connection  with  the  covenant  of  grace.  I  have 
shown  that  it  was  a  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
and  his  natural  posterity,  and  therefore  excluding 
any  of  his  spiritual  seed,  who  were  not  also  of  the 
natural ;  that  it  is,  both  in  the  terms  of  its  original 
constitution,  and  in  the  conceptions  which  Paul 
had  of  it,  legal,  and  opposed  in  its  spirit  to  the 
covenant  of  grace;  that  it  is  the  old  covenant  and 
not  the  new ;  and  that  it  is  an  essential  part  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  agreeing  with  it  in  spirit,  and 
affirmed  in  Scripture  to  belong  to  it. 

I  will  close  this  chapter  with  a  remark  of  ex- 
planation, on  the  old  and  new  covenants. 

I  have  said  that  God  revealed  the  covenant  of 
grace,  that  is,  the  new  covenant,  to  Abraham,  24 
years  before  he  made  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision. Perhaps  my  readers  may  infer  from  this, 
that  I  represent  the  new  covenant  as  chronologi- 
cally older  than  the  old  covenant.  But  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  declarations  which 
God  made  to  Abraham  involving  a  promise  of 
the  Messiah,  (Gen.  xii.  8 ;  xxii.  18,)  which  Paul 
calls  a  covenant,  (Gal.  iii.  17,)  are  never  called  a 
covenant  in  the  Old  Testament,  unless  in  the 
language  of  prophecy.     God  did  not  call  them  a 


50  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

covenant  when  he  gave  them  to  Abraham.  They 
appear  in  the  history  simply  as  a  promise,  but  a 
promise  conceived  and  expressed  entirely  in  the 
spirit  of  the  new  covenant ;  for  that  is  purely  a 
covenant  of  promise.  It  could  not  properly  be 
called  a  covenant  until  its  public  ratification, 
which  was  made  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Heb. 
ix.  16,  17.  Jeremiah,  (xxxi.  31,  34,)  in  ref- 
erence to  that  complete  and  public  ratification, 
calls  it  prophetically  a  covenant ;  and  Paul,  after 
this  event,  speaks  of  it  historically  as  a  covenant. 
Peter,  also,  does  the  same,  in  the  first  instance. 
Acts  iii.  25.  Now  as  the  covenant  of  grace  could 
not  be  visibly  established  until  the  legal  cove- 
nant had  been  first  set  up  and  tried,  had  fulfilled 
its  object,  proved  its  insufficiency,  and  been  re- 
jected ;  in  reference  to  that,  it  is  called  the  second 
or  new  covenant;  and  that,  in  reference  to  this, 
is  called  the  first  or  old  covenant.* 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE   PROMISES   IN   THE   COVENANT   OF 
CIRCUMCISION. 

The  promises  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision, 
which  include  the  posterity  of  Abraham  with 
him,  are  contained  in  Gen.  xvii.  7,  8 :  ^'  And  I 
will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 

*  See  "  The  Two  Covenants,"  by  Rev.  T.  A.  Wamerj 
Sec.  5. 


PROMISES   IN   GENESIS   XVII.  51 

and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  to 
be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. 
And  I  will  give  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all 
the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession, 
and  I  will  be  their  God." 

The  promises  here,  it  will  be  seen,  are  com- 
prised under  two  heads  :  1.  '^  I  will  be  a  God  to 
thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  2.  "I  will  give 
unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  all  the  land 
of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession."  And 
the  only  condition  here  required  of  Abraham's 
posterity,  on  which  they  may  expect  these  bless- 
ings, is,  that  they  observe  the  law  of  circumcision. 
Pedobaptist  writers  usually  insist  that  these 
promises,  "  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee" — "I  will  be  their  God,"  are 
spiritual  promises.  The  author  before  quoted 
(Rev,  Dr.  Porter)  says,  "When  God  promised 
Abraham  that  he  would  be  his  God,  all  was  pro- 
mised that  could  be  desired,  or  infinite  grace 
could  bestow.  For  a  promise  made  to  a  man, 
that  God  will  be  his  God,  is  expressive  of  all 
that  a  creature  can  need,  for  time  and  eternity," 
If  this  be  the  import  of  these  words,  let  us  see 
what  must  necessarily  follow.  Let  it  be  observed 
that  the  posterity  of  Abraham  are  as  truly  in- 
cluded in  this  covenant  as  he  was,  and  these 
promises  are  made  equally  to  him  and  to  them. 
'  If  there  is  any  difference  between  Abraham  and 
his  posterity,  it  is  in  their  favor;  for  the  pro- 
mise is  repeated  to  them,  while  it  is  made  to  him 
but  once.     Let  it  be  further  observed,  that  the 


52  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

sole  condition  expressed  in  this  covenant,  as  bind- 
ing upon  Abraham's  posterity,  is,  that  the  law  of 
circumcision  be  obeyed ;  and  especially,  that  no 
necessity  of  repentance,  faith,  or  any  other  holy 
exercise  is  here  expressed.*  According  to  the 
express  terms  of  this  covenant,  there  is  not  a 
single  exception  to  the  reception  of  all  the  bless- 
ings promised,  by  all  contemplated  in  it,  who 
observe  its  sole  condition — the  law  of  circum- 
cision. Let  us  see  now  what  must  necessarily 
follow  from  the  Pedobaptist  interpretation  of 
these  promises.  First,  every  one  of  the  pos- 
terity of  Abraham,  who  was  duly  circumcised, 
had  God  for  his  spiritual  portion,  and  was  en- 
titled to  all  the  blessings  which  flow  from  that 
great  fact,  in  time  and  through  all  eternity. 
Mocking  Ishmael,  and  profane  Esau,  set  forth  as 
examples  of  unbelief;    Keuben,   Simeon,    Levi, 

*  It  is  pometimes  said  that  there  are  other  conditions  to 
this  covenant,  as  holy  living: — "Walk  before  me  and  be 
thou  perfect."  But  no  intimation  is  given  in  this  covenant 
that  the  exhortation  was  a  condition  ;  and  if  it  was,  it  was 
a  condition  resting  upon  Abraham,  and  not  upon  his  pos- 
terity. It  is  said  that  another  condition  is  stated  in  chap, 
xviii.  19,  viz.  the  rehgious  education  of  children.  To  this 
I  answer  :  (1.)  There  is  no  intimation  in  this  covenant  of 
this  condition.  If  it  were  a  condition  of  this  covenant,  it 
would  have  been  stated.  (2.)  If  it  be  a  condition  in  this 
covenant,  it  is  imposed  only  upon  Abraham.  No  intima- . 
tion  is  given  either  in  this  covenant,  or  where  it  is  found, 
that  it  was,  either  expressly  or  by  implication,  imposed 
upon  his  posterity.  (3.)  If  it  be  a  condition,  it  was  fulfilled 
to  the  letter.  God  says,  "  Iknoic  him  that  he  will  command 
his  children  and  his  household  after  him."  If  God  knew 
that  Abraham  would  do  it,  we  may  be  certain  that  he  did 
do  it.  So  nothing  remained  but  for  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham to  fulfill  their  condition. 


LOGICAL   CONSEQUENCES.  53 

and  the  other  graceless  sons  of  Jacob;  Korah, 
Dathan  and  Abiram  ;  the  multitudes  who  perished 
in  the  wilderness ;  Achan ;  and  so  on  down,  all 
had  God  for  their  spiritual  portion  in  time  and 
to  all  eternity,  just  as  much  as  Abraham ;  for 
the  terms  of  this  covenant  secure  it  equally 
to  him  and  to  them.  Secondly,  since  (on  this 
scheme  of  interpretation)  Grod  covenants  with 
Christians  now,  in  the  same  manner  and  on  the 
same  terms  as  he  did  with  Abraham,  only  re- 
quiring them  to  baptize  instead  of  circumcise 
their  children,  it  follows  that  every  baptized 
child  is  as  sure  of  salvation  as  Abraham  was. 
There  can  be  no  possibility  of  his  failure  ',  for 
the  compound  double  sense  in  which  the  words 
of  the  covenant  are  to  be  taken,  bring  the  be- 
lieving parent  into  the  place  of  Abraham,  and 
the  children  into  the  place  of  his  seed,  and  the 
promise  is,  "  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed  after  tliee'^ — "  I  will  be  their  God ;"  and 
"  no  believer  can  have  a  richer  promise  than 
this,  that  God  will  be  his  God."*  Nor  is  this 
all )  here  are  temporal  blessings  promised  with 
just  the  same  certainty  and  to  just  the  same  per- 
sons. The  covenant,  our  brethren  say,  is  ever- 
lasting, and  is  therefore  yet  in  force.  Very  well ; 
just  as  everlasting  as  is  the  covenant,  so  everlast- 
ing is  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan  : 
''  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee,  the  land  ivherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all 
the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possesuon." 

*  Porter's  Dissertation. 

5 


54  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

No  alchemy  of  a  double  sense,  simple  or  com- 
pound, can  transmute  this  into  the  everlasting 
inheritance  of  the  saints  in  glory  3  for  it  is  the 
land  wherein  Abraham  was  a  stranger,  and  the 
Apostle  says  that  he  was  a  "  stranger  and  pilgrim 
on  the  earth."^  And  this  promise  must  belong  to 
him  who  is  duly  baptized  in  infancy.  He  has 
an  inheritance  divinely  guaranteed  to  him  in  the 
land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey.  Thirdly, 
there  is  no  reason  why  this  great  privilege  of 
infant  baptism,  with  its  train  of  unspeakable 
blessings,  spiritual  and  temporal,  should  be 
limited  to  a  single  generation.  For,  a  believing 
parent  standing  in  the  place  of  Abraham,  (accord- 
ing to  the  compound  double  sense,)  the  covenant 
is  made  with  him  in  the  same  terms  that  it  was 
with  Abraham,  "  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee,  m  their  generations.' '  The 
grand-children,  great  grand-children,  and  the  pos- 
terity down — why  not  to  the  end  of  the  world  ? 
everlasting  does  not  mean  less  than  that — may 
be  baptized  on  the  faith  of  a  single  ancestor,  and 
inherit  the  promise,  "I  will  be  their  God,"  which 
*'  is  expressive  of  all  that  a  creature  can  need  for 
time  and  eternity."t 

Such  are  the  manifest  absurdities  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist  interpretation  of  the  Covenant  of  Circum- 
cision, and  no  ingenuity  can  escape  them,  if  their 
assumed  positions  are  correct. 

But  now  I  shall  be  asked,  was  not  God  spiritu- 
ally Abraham's  Godi:'   and   does   not   that   fact, 

*  Heb.  xi.  13.  t  _l'orter. 


GOD,   THE   GOD   OF   ABRAHAM.  55 

which  all  must  admit,  establish  the  spiritual 
nature  of  these  promises  ?  I  answer,  God  was 
spiritually  Abraham's  God,  but  not  by  virtue  of 
this  covenant.  He  was  so,  long  before  this  time, 
by  virtue  of  the  new  covenant  revealed  to  him 
24  years  before  he  was  cii'cumcised,  and  by  faith 
in  that.  So  the  Apostle  tells  us  distinctly  in  the 
fourth  chapter  of  Romans.  The  same  was  true 
of  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  Joseph,  and  Moses,  and 
Aaron,  and  Joshua,  and  Samuel,  and  David,  and 
all  the  Old  Testament  saints.  But  God  was  never 
any  one's  God,  spiritually,  by  virtue  of  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision,  and  never  promised  to  be. 
In  that  covenant,  he  brought  Abraham  and  his 
posterity  into  a  peculiar  external  relation  to  him- 
self. Their  faith,  or  their  want  of  faith,  would 
not  affect  that  external  relation.  They  might  be 
believers,  as  Abraham,  Joseph,  and  David;  or 
they  might  be  unbelievers,  as  Achan,  Joab,  and 
Absalom. 

God  promised  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham  and 
his  posterity,  in  an  external  and  national  sense. 
He  was  so.  He  distinguished  them  above  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  as  his  people.  He  committed 
to  them  his  oracles.  He  established  among  them 
his  visible  worship.  To  them,  of  all  nations,  per- 
tained the  Shechinah,  and  the  symbols  of  the 
Divine  presence.  He  gave  them  many  facilities 
for  obtaining  a  true  knowledge  of  himself,  and  of 
-  truly  worshipping  and  serving  him.  He  watched 
over  them  with  a  peculiar  providential  regard. 
He  often  interposed  for  them  in  a  remarkable 
and  miraculous  manner. 


56  COVENANT  OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

These  are  the  blessings  promised  in  this  cove- 
nant. National  blessings,  temporal  blessings, 
outward  religious  privileges,  but  not  spiritual 
blessings.  So  the  Apostle  tells  us  in  Rom.  iii. 
2,  in  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  profit  is 
there  of  circumcision  ?  Much  every  way ;  cluf-Jly 
because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the  ora- 
cles of  Grod."  This,  mark,  was  the  chief  advan- 
tage— the  oracles  of  God — that  is,  the  word  and 
public  worship  of  God. 

This  is  the  sense  in  w^hich  that  sort  of  phrase- 
ology is  always  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  except 
when  it  is  employed  by  the  prophets  to  describe 
gospel  times.  Thus  God  declared  to  Israel  at 
Mount  Sinai,  ''I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  that 
brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;"  and  yet 
scarcely  a  month  elapsed  before  the  people  who 
were  thus  addressed  were  dancing  around  a  golden 
calf,  and  that  whole  generation,  with  a  few  indi- 
vidual exceptions,  perished  in  unbelief.*  So  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  Jews  are  spoken 
of  as  a  sinful  nation,  a  people  laden  with  iniquity, 
a  seed  of  evil  doers,  children  that  are  corrupters ; 
while  yet,  in  the  same  connection,  God  calls  them 
*'  my  people."  So  elsewhere,  God  speaks  of  ''  the 
wickedness  of  my  people  Israel."  Let  any  one 
take  a  full  concordance  of  the  Bible,  and  examine 
the  places  where  the  phrases,  '^  The  Lord  thy 
God,"  ''  The  Lord  your  God,"  '^  The  Lord  their 
God,"  "  My  people,"  and  other  similar  expressions 
are  used,  and  he  will  find  that  their  usual  appli- 

*  All,  with  a  few  exceptions,  who  were  twenty  years 
old  aud  upwards,  at  the  exodus  from  ilgypt. 


A   POSITIVE    ORDINANCE.  57 

cation  in  the  Old  Testament  is  to  Israel  considered 
as  a  nation,  without  any  reference  to  their  spirit- 
ual state.  They  are  often  applied  to  Israel  when 
sunk  in  idolatry  and  the  deepest  moral  corruption. 
When  the  Prophets  are  speaking  of  New  Testa- 
ment times,  they  sometimes  use  these  expressions 
in  a  New  Testament  sense ;  but  apart  from  these 
instances,  the  common  usage  is  as  I  have  stated 
it  to  be. 


CHAPTER  VL 

CIRCUMCISION   A    POSITIVE   ORDINANCE. 

The  law  which  establishes  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision is  a  positive,  in  distinction  from  being  a 
moral  law.  The  distinction  between  moral  and 
positive  laws  is  one  recognized  by  all  accustomed 
to  think  on  these  subjects;  and  indeed  the  recog- 
nition of  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  any  correct 
reasoning  upon  the  subject  of  external  rites.  It 
is  well  stated  by  Bishop  Butler.  ''  Moral  pre- 
cepts, are  precepts  the  reason  of  which  we  see ; 
positive  precepts,  are  precepts  the  reason  of  which 
we  do  not  see.  Moral  duties  arise  out  of  the 
nature  of  the  case  prior  to  external  command; 
positive  duties  do  not  arise  out  of  the  nature  of 
the  case,  but  from  external  command ;  nor  would 
they  be  duties  at  all,  were  it  not  for  such  com- 
5* 


58  COVENANT    OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

maud,  received  from  Him  whose  creatures  and 
subjects  we  are.''"^ 

As  I  presume  every  one  will  admit  that  circum- 
cision is  a  positive  ordinance,  I  need  not  spend 
time  to  show  it.  Every  one  must  see  that  cir- 
cumcision could  never  have  been  a  duty  before  it 
was  commanded,  nor  to  those  to  whom  it  was  not 
commanded.  But  if  it  were  a  moral  duty,  it 
would  have  been  binding  always,  and  universally; 
and  if  it  is  a  positive  ordinance,  the  law  which 
requires  it,  if  obeyed  at  all,  must  be  obeyed  ac- 
cording to  its  letter.  None  but  He  who  made 
the  law  can  abrogate  or  change  it  in  the  least 
particular.  No  one  has  the  least  business  to  speak 
of  obeying  the  spirit  of  it  while  he  changes  the 
letter ;  since  the  whole  reason  for  obeying  it  at  all 
lies  in  the  letter,  and  we  can  know  nothing  about 
the  spirit  of  it  except  by  the  letter. 

But  now  observe  what  liberties  our  brethren 
have  taken  with  this  covenant  and  law  of  circum- 
cision, while  they  claim  that  it  is  still  in  force, 
that  they  are  living  under  it,  and  enjoying  its 
privileges, 

1.  They  have  greatly  extended  it.  The  cove- 
nant, by  its  very  terms,  is  limited  to  Abraham 
and  his  natural  seed,  and  to  such  persons  from 
other  nations  as  should  be  incorporated  into  the 
family  or  nation  by  purchase,  captivity,  birth 
among  them,  or  other  means  of  naturalization ;  in 
other  words,  to  natural  or  proselyted  Jews.  They 
have  extended  it  to  Christians  among  all  nations 

*  Analog}',  Part  2,  Chap.  I. 


MAY   NOT   BE   CHANGED.  59 

and  their  natural  seed ;  and  they  have  made  this 
extension  without  anything  like  a  Divine  warrant 
for  it. 

2.  They  have  changed  its  appointed  rite,  from 
circumcision  to  sprinkling  a  little  water  in  the 
face.     Have  they  any  authority  for  making  this 
change  ?     Not  the  least.     They  often  affirm  that 
God  iias  changed  the  "  seal''  of  the  covenant  from 
circumcision  to  baptism;  but  they  affirm  it  with- 
out any  scriptural  authority.     They  are  bound  to 
show  a  clear  precept ;  for  the  law  establishing  the 
rite  of  circumcision  is  ver}'^  explicit.     It  will  not 
do  to  say  that  the  covenant  is  one  thing  and   the 
law  of  circumcision  another,  a  mere  appendage  to 
the  first;  it  is  given  as  essential  to  the  very  cove- 
nant itself.   "  Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant  there- 
fore— This    is  my  covenant,   which  ye  shall 
keep — every  man  child  among  you  shall  he  cir- 
cumcised.    And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of 
your  for esh in — and  my  covenant  shall  he  in  your 
FLESH /jr  an  EVERLASTING  COVENANT."     There 
is  no  separating  the  rite  of  circumcision  from  the 
covenant  of  which  it  is  a  part.     This  covenant  is 
in  no  respect  more  strongly  declared   to  be  ever- 
lasting than  in  the  stipulation  which  requires  the 
observance  of  this  rite.     When  God  has  declared, 
"  My  covenant  shall   be   in   your  flesh  for  an 
EVERLASTING  COVENANT,"  what  are  our  brethren 
thinking  about  while,  claiming  to  live  under   it, 
-and  enjoy  its  privileges,  they  simply  sprinkle  a 
little  water  in  the  face  ?     What  kind  of  Being  do 
they  suppose  they  are  covenanting  with  ? 

3.  They  have  changed  the  subjects  of  the  rite. 


60  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

The  covenant  limits  the  rite  to  males;  they  have 
extended  their  substitute  to  females.  The  cove- 
nant extends  the  privilege  of  its  rite  to  males 
among  servants  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with 
money;  they  have  denied  the  privilege  of  their 
substitute  to  this  class  of  persons.  The  covenant 
requires  that  its  rite  shall  be  administered  to  chil- 
dren at  eight  days  old ;  they  administer  their 
substitute  to  children  from  the  natal  hour  up  to 
any  age  within  the  limits  of  minority.  8uch 
work  have  they  made  with  this  covenant,  involv- 
ing a  positive  law.  Extending,  substituting,  con- 
tracting, expanding;  here  literal,  there  figurative, 
here  simple  sense,  there  compound  double  sense; 
out-Swedenborging  Swedenborg  himself; — all  this 
in  a  covenant  made  by  the  God  of  everlasting  and 
immutable  truth.  I  ask  again,  what  kind  of 
Being  do  our  brethren  suppose  they  are  covenant- 
ing with  ? 


CHAPTER    YII. 

THE    USES    OF    THE   RITE    OF    CIRCUMCISION. 

The  most  obvious  use  of  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision was  to  define,  by  a  visible  mark  or  sign, 
the  ancient  covenant  people  of  God.  This  rite 
distinguished  the  Jews  from  all  other  people,  and 
kept  them  distinct.     Hence  they  were  designated 


USES   OF   CIRCUMCISION.  61 

among  the  heathen  as  the  "  circumcised  Jews."* 
Besides  this,  three  other  important  purposes  were 
accomplished  by  this  rite. 

1.  Circumcision  had  a  peculiar  use  in  reference 
to  Abraham  3  a  use  which  applied  to  no  one  else. 
To  him  it  was  a  seal  of  the  righfeousness  of  his 
personal  or  individual  faith.  So  the  Apostle 
informs  us  in  Rom.  iv.  11.  "And  he  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircum- 
cised."  To  him  it  was  such  a  seal,  but  we  have 
no  account  that  it  was  to  any  one  else.  Indeed 
it  obviously  could  not  be  to  one  who  had  no  faith. 
It  was  said  of  Abraham  fifteen  years  before  he 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  "  And  he  be- 
lieved in  the  Lord,  and  he  counted  it  to  him  for 
righteousness."  Abraham  plainly  could  not  be 
justified  on  the  ground  of  his  faith,  unless  he  had 
a  firm  and  abiding  confidence  in  the  promises  on 
which  his  faith  was  founded.  These  promises 
were  two ;  the  first  necessarily  antecedent  to  the 
second,  and,  though  temporal  in  its  nature,  just 
as  essential  to  the  perfection  of  Abraham's  faith 
as  the  second,  which  was  spiritual.  The  first  of 
these  promises  secured  to  him  a  numerous  poste- 
rityj  and  engaged  that  it  should  become  a  power- 
ful nation.  Gen.  xii.  2  :  '^  I  will  make  of  thee  a 
great  nation."  So  chap.  xv.  5  :  "  And  he  brought 
him  forth  abroad  and  said,  Look  now  toward 
heaven,  and  tell  the  stars,  if  thou  be  able  to  num- 
ber them.     And  he  said  unto  him^  So  shall  thy 

*  ''  Visne  tu  curtis  Judceis  oppedere  ?" — Horace. 


62  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

seed  be."  The  second  of  these  promises  was, 
''  In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed;"  in  which  Abraham  unquestionably 
recognized  the  Messiah.  Less  than  this,  it  would 
seem,  cannot  be  made  of  that  declaration  of  Christ 
in  John  viii.  56,  "  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced 
to  see  ray  day,  and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad." 
Now  Abrciham  believed  both  these  promises,  and 
it  was  in  consequence  of  his  unwavering  faith 
that  they  would  be  fulfilled,  notwithstanding  all 
untoward  appearances,  that  his  faith  was  counted 
to  him  for  righteousness.  (See  Rom.  iv.  18-28.) 
And  when  God  appeared  to  him,  (Gen.  xvii.  1,) 
and  said  to  him,  I  am  El  Shad(hii,  GoD  ALL 
SUFFICIENT,  repeated  the  promise  of  a  numerous 
and  powerful  people  as  his  posterity,  changed  his 
name  in  reference  to  it,  made  a  covenant  with 
him  which  brought  him  and  his  posterity  into  a 
peculiar  visible  relation  to  himself,  put  a  mark 
upon  them  which  would  d.istingush  them  from  all 
other  nations  as  his  own  people — his  faith  was 
strengthened  and  established  in  God's  promises, 
beyond  the  possibility  of  being  any  more  shaken. 
Though  his  heir  was  not  yet  born,  and  would  not 
be  until  he  was  an  hundred  years  old  and  Sarah 
ninety,  '^  he  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  God," 
but  since  He,  God  all  sufficient,  had  declared 
the  event  would  take  place,  and  had  made  these 
definite  arrangements  in  reference  to  his  posterity 
through  that  son  whose  future  birth  was  as  yet 
purely  a  matter  of  faith,  he  knew  that  the  pro- 
mise would  be  fulfilled.  In  the  institution  of 
circumcision,  he  saw  how  his  posterity  would  be 


SEAL  OF  Abraham's  faith.  63 

kept  from  being  merged  into  the  nations  among 
which,  in  their  national  infancy,  they  might 
sojourn,*  and  thus  the  promise  that  he  should  be- 
come a  great  nation  be  fulfilled ; — and  how  as  a 
nation  they  would  be  preserved  distinct  from  all 
other  nations  until  the  Messiah,  the  great  foun- 
dation of  his  faith,  should  be  born.  And  thus 
circumcision  became  to  him  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.  But  it  is  evident  that  it  could 
never  be  to  any  other  person,  because  it  could  not 
have  been  to  him  except  in  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances in  which  he  was  placed.  Still  less  could 
it  be  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  to  one 
who  has  no  faith,  as  an  Infant  of  eight  days,  or 
an  adult  unbeliever.  God  has  made  everything 
beautiful  in  its  time  and  place ;  but  out  of  its 
time  and  place,  that  which  otherwise  was  comely 
and  symmetrical,  is  deformed  and  monstrous. 

There  is  perhaps  another  sense  in  which  cir- 
cumcision may  appropriately  be  said  to  have  been 
a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  Abraham's  faith. 
God  was  pleased  to  make  his  faith  an  appointed 
antecedent,  and  in  that  sense,  a  condition  of  the 
peculiar  blessings  promised  to  him  and  his  poste- 
rity. When,  therefore,  God  appeared  to  him, 
renewed  in  the  most  solemn  manner  the  promises 
he  had  before  made,  (viz.  in  Gen.  xii.  2  ;  xv.  4, 
5,  18,)  and  gave  to  him,  both  for  himself  and  his 
posterity,  a  visible  sign  or  token  of  the  fulfillment 
■  of  those  promises,  that  fact  removed  all  possible 
uncertainty  in  relation  to  the  bestowment  of  those 

*  For  a  clear  illustration  of  this,  see  Gen.  xxxiv.  14-17. 


64  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

blessings,  because  God,  by  that  act,  expressed 
mo>t  clearly  his  approbation  of  Abraham's  faith. 
It  was  his  seal  set  to  the  righteousness  or  accept- 
ableness  of  it.  Hence  Paul  says,  "  He  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncir- 
cumcised;"  L  e.  the  same  rite  became,  at  once, 
a  sign  or  token  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham 
and  his  posterity,  and  a  seal  of  the  acceptableness 
of  Abraham's  faith.  But  it  is  still  more  clear, 
from  this  point  of  view,  that  it  could  not  have 
been  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  to  any 
but  Abraham.  It  was  by  conferring  this  distinc- 
tion especially  upon  him — tbat  of  giving  to  him, 
and  to  his  posterity  ybr  his  sake,  this  covenant  and 
rite — that  God  so  strikingly  expressed  his  appro- 
bation of  his  faith,  and  so  sealed  it;  i.  e.  made  a 
declaration  which  all  might  understand  that  he 
was  pleased  with  it.  But  circumcision  was  not 
the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  of  Jacob, 
or  Moses,  or  Joshua,  or  Samuel,  or  David,  be- 
cause their  faith  had  no  agency  in  giving  them 
either  the  rite,  or  the  privileges  secured  in  the 
covenant.  They  received  the  rite  when  they  could 
not  have  had  faith ;  and  they  received  that,  and 
the  blessings  promised  in  the  covenant,  for  the 
sake  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  their  ancestor. 

2.  Circumcision  was  a  token,  or  visible  sign  of 
the  covenant  between  God  and  Abraham,  includ- 
ing his  posterity.  So  it  is  called  in  Gen.  xvii.  11. 
'^  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  fore- 
skin )  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  be- 
twixt me  and  you.'' 


TOKEN    OF   THE   COVENANT.  65 

"We  often  hear  the  declaration  made,  that  cir- 
cumcision was  the  seal  of  God's  covenant  with  his 
people  in  the  ancient  dispensation,  and  baptism 
is  now  the  seal  of  the  same  covenant.  Both  of 
these  assertions  stand  on  the  same  foundation ; 
and  that  is,  the  imagination  of  those  who  make 
them.  It  is  marvellous  that  this  declaration 
should  be  made  and  reiterated  so  often,  without  a 
syllable  of  Scripture  to  support  it.  If  any  one 
can  find  a  passage  in  the  Bible,  in  which  circum- 
cision is  called  the  seal  of  any  covenant,  he  will 
be  more  successful  than  I  have  been.  It  is  never 
called  a  seal,  except  in  Rom.  iv,  11,  where  it  is 
called  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  Abrahajns 
faith.  It  was  the  token  of  the  covenant  between 
God  and  his  ancient  people.  But  a  token  and  a 
seal  are  two  different  things.  A  seal  is  affixed  to 
an  instrument  to  ratify  or  confirm  it.  If  an  in- 
strument requires  the  ratification  of  a  seal,  it  is 
not  valid  until  the  seal  is  affixed,  and  cannot  pro- 
perly be  said  to  have  existence.  Hence  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  was  never  called  a  covenant,  (except 
in  prophetic  language,)  until  after  it  had  received 
its  appointed  seal,  the  blood  of  Christ.  On  the 
contrary,  a  token  is  a  visible  sign  or  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  a  covenant,  that  would  have  real 
and  valid  existence  without  the  token,  but  still 
the  parties  interested  might  need  the  token  to 
assure  them  of  its  existence.  Thus  God  made  a 
covenant  with  Noah  not  to  destroy  the  world 
again  by  a  flood,  of  which  the  rainbow  is  the  ap- 
pointed token  or  sign.  Now,  if  it  is  evident  that 
God  might  have  determined  and  promised  not  to 
6 


66  COVENANT    OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

destroy  the  world  by  a  flood,  and  that  determina- 
tion be  perfectly  immutable  without  any  visible 
token  ;  but  the  token  is  to  us  an  assurance  of  the 
existence  of  that  determination.  So  circumcision 
was  always  a  sign  or  proof  to  the  Jew,  that  he  wag 
in  a  peculiar  sense  in  covenant  with  God ;  while 
nevertheless  that  covenant  might  have  existed, 
and  been  perfectly  valid,  without  the  token.  Cir- 
cumcision then  was  not  a  seal,  to  ratify  and  give 
validity  to  the  covenant,  but  a  token  or  visible  sign 
to  the  Jew,  that  a  true  and  valid  covenant  existed. 

3.  Circumcision  was  a  type  of  inward  or  spiri- 
tual purity.  So  it  is  used  in  both  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  Of  the  multitude  of  passages 
that  might  be  quoted,  I  shall  only  cite  a  few  as 
examples. 

Deut.  X.  16 — "  Circumcise  the  foreskin  of  your 
hearts  j"  xxx.  6 — "  And  the  Lord  thy  God  will 
circumcise  thine  heart."  Jer.  iv.  4 — "  Circumcise 
yourselves  to  the  Lord,  and  take  away  the  fore- 
skins of  your  heart."  Rom.  ii.  28,  29 — "  For 
he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly,  neither  is 
that  circumcision  which  is  outward,  in  the  flesh ; 
but  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  inwardl}-,  and  circum-r 
cision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not 
in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not  of  men  but  of 
God."  Col.  ii.  11 — "In  whom  also  ye  are  cir- 
cumcised, with  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands,  in  putting  ofi"  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ;"  i.  e.  by 
Christian  circumcision.  Here  we  are  expressly 
told  what  Christian  circumcision  is.  It  is  the 
circumcision  made  without  handsj  not  baptism, 
nor  any  ocher  external  rite. 


TYPE   OF   SPIRITUAL   PURITY.  67 

Here  we  may  see  what  New  Testament  fact 
circumcision  represents.  It  is  not  a  type  of  bap- 
tism, but  of  the  purification  of  the  heart  which 
all  the  spiritual  Israel  experience.  The  nation  of 
Israel,  who  were  in  an  outward  sense  the  people 
of  God,  were  a  type  of  those  who  are  spiritually 
the  people  of  God  ;  and  as  all  who  were  of  the 
outward  Israel  received  the  rite  of  circumcision, 
so  all  who  are  of  the  spiritual  Israel  receive  the 
spiritual  purification  typified  by  the  rite. — Phil, 
iii.  3.  In  further  confirmation  of  what  I  have 
here  shown,  I  will  state  a  general  truth,  which 
covers  the  whole  subject  of  Old  Testament  insti- 
tutions, which  I  think  no  person  who  has  thought 
much  upon  the  connection  between  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  the  New,  will  deny  : — "  No  external 
institution  or  fact  in  the  Old  Testainerit,  is  a 
type  of  a  mere  human  or  external  fact  or  rite  in 
the  New.  External  rites  and  external  facts  in 
the  Old  Testament,  are  invariably  types  of  spirit- 
ual or  divine  facts  in  the  New^  To  this  rule  I 
know  of  no  exception.  The  only  apparent  excep- 
tion shall  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter.  Thus 
particular  men  in  the  Old  Testament  are  types  of 
Christ.  The  Passover  is  a  type,  not  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  but  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  (1  Cor.  v.  7.) 
The  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  are  also  types 
of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  That  the  case  now  un- 
der consideration  is  no  exception,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  circumcision  is  invariably  spoken  of 
in  the  Scriptures  as  a  type  of  inward  purification ; 
never  as  a  type  of  outward  baptism. 


68  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

AN  APPARENT  EXCEPTION  TO  A  GENERAL  RULE : 
1  PET.  iii.  21.  ANALOGY  AND  DIFFERENCE 
BETWEEN  CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM. 

The  usual  interpretation  of  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  pre- 
sents an  exception  to  the  rule  stated  near  the 
close  of  the  last  chapter ;  and  as  it  is  the  only 
apparent  exception  I  know  of,  it  is  worth  while 
to  inquire  whether  it  is  merely  apparent  or  real. 
If  merely  apparent,  the  rule  is  established  without 
exception. 

"  An  antitype  to  which,  baptism,  now  saves 
us,"  &c.  According  to  the  usual  interpretation 
of  this  passage,  baptism  is  an  antitype  of  the  ark, 
or  the  waters  of  the  flood,  or  the  fact  that  Noah 
and  his  family  were  saved  in  the  ark  from  the 
flood,  (some  taking  one  of  these  particulars  as  the 
one  referred  to  by  the  Apostle,  and  some  another,) 
and  consequently  one  or  another  of  these  historical 
facts  is  a  type  of  the  external  ordinance  of  baptism. 
But  this  interpretation  assumes  that  the  word 
avritvTiov  (antitype)  is  used  in  this  text  as  pre- 
cisely equivalent  to  our  theological  word  anti- 
type ;  a  point  by  no  means  to  be  taken  for  granted. 
The  original  word  is  used  in  but  one  other  place 
in  the  New  Testament :  Heb.  ix.  24,  ^^  Christ  is 
not  entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands, 
which  are  the  figures  (dmT'urta,  antitypes)  of  the 
true ;"  where  the  word  is  used  in  a  sense  exactly 


.     TYPE   AND   ANTITYPE.  by 

opposed  to  our  theological  word  antitype.  Using 
these  words  in  their  theological  sense,  we  should 
say  that  the  holy  places  made  with  hands  are  the 
types,  of  the  true,  and  the  true  holy  places  are  an- 
titypes of  those  made  with  hands;  whereas  the 
Apostle  says  the  holy  places  made  with  hands  are 
the  antitypes  of  the  true.  He  consequently  uses 
the  word  antitype  in  precisely  the  sense  of  our  word 
type,  i.  e.,  in  a  sense  exactly  opposite  to  that  of  our 
word  antitype.  The  affirmation  of  the  Apostle  is, 
that  the  holy  places  made  with  hands,  are  types 
QY  figures,  (rurta)  corresponding  (dj/rJ)*  to  the  true 
holy  places,  or  heaven. 

We  may  here  see  what  is  the  precise  import  of 
the  word  o^vti'tv-nov  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
a  type  (rii/toj)  corresponding  (a,vti)  to  something 
else.  That  something  else  may  be  the  thing  sig- 
nified by  the  type,  as  in  the  passage  in  Hebrews; 
or  it  may  be,  for  aught  that  appears,  some  other 
type,  as  it  undoubtedly  is  in  the  passage  in  Peter. 
The  Apostle  says  in  the  20th  verse,  that  Noah  and 
his  family  were  saved  by  water,  in  the  Ark.  This 
salvation  from  the  flood  was  to  them  a  type  of  final 
salvation  from  the  wrath  of  God.  He  proceeds  in 
the  next  verse, — "  A  type  corresponding  to  which, 
(viz.,  to  their  salvation  in  the  ark,  which  was  to 
them  a  type  of  final  salvation,)  baptism,  now  saves 
us,"  &c.  That  is,  believers  have  in  their  baptism, 
a  beautiful  type  of  salvation,  not  less  clear  and 
instructive  than  the  one  given  to  Noah  and  his 

*  "  In  N.  T.  avti  in  composition  here  implies  resemblance, 
correspondence." — Robinson's  Lexicon,  voc.  dj/ttr'vrtoj. 

6* 


70  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

family.  In  baptism  is  most  expressively  symbol- 
ized the  burial  (which  implies  the  death)  and  re- 
surrection of  Christ,  the  great  facts  which  are  the 
foundation  of  salvation.  In  the  same  ordinance 
is  also  symbolized  the  present  salvation  from  sin 
of  the  believer,  and  his  future  resurrection  from 
the  dead  and  eternal  glorification.  So  that  we 
have  in  this  ordinance  a  symbol,  at  once,  of  the 
salvation  itself  of  the  believer,  and  of  the  means 
by  which  it  is  accomplished. 

The  correspondence  between  these  two  types, 
consists  in,  at  least,  the  two  following  particulars  : 
1.  The  salvation  of  the  lives  of  Noah  and  his 
family  from  the  flood,  was  to  them  a  clear  and 
vivid  type  of  final  salvation  from  the  wrath  of 
God.  Baptism  is  a  not  less  clear,  and  a  more 
beautiful  type  of  the  same  great  salvation.  2. 
Noah  and  his  family  had  this  type  presented  to 
them  hy  means  of  water  ;  (hi  rSaroj) — Doddridge 
says,  perhaps  not  incorrectly,  "  hy  heing  carried 
throuyh  the  water.''  The  believer's  type  of  salva- 
tion is  also  presented  to  him  by  means  of  water ; 
or  if  one  prefers,  by  being  carried  through  the 
water.  What  place  there  is  for  the  frequent  log- 
omachy about  the  Ark's  being  sprinkled  with  the 
waters  of  the  deluge,  the  intelligent  reader  may 
judge. 

Since  writing  the  preceding  remarks,  I  find  in 
Turretine  a  statement  of  the  rule  I  have  laid  down, 
and  of  the  view  I  have  given  of  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  It 
is  stated  with  such  strength  and  clearness  of  ex- 
pression, that  I  cannot  forbear  giving  his  words. 
He  is  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in 


-  CORRESPONDING    TYPES.  71 

the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  and  their  eating  of  the 
manna,  and  drinking  of  the  rock,  in  1  Cor.  x. 

^'For  what  Bellarmine  sets  forth,  that  these 
were  not  so  much  sacraments  as  types  of  sacra- 
ments, is  absurd  ;  inasmuch  as  a  sacrament,  since 
it  is  an  external  thing,  (and  indeed  whatever  is  a 
type  of  any  internal  and  spiritual  thing,')  has  no 
need  of  any  other  type  by  which  it  may  be  repre- 
sented. Two  types,  indeed,  can  be  given,  similar 
and  corresponding  to  each  other,  of  one  and  the 
same  truth,  and  so  far  the  ancient  sacraments 
were  wtitvTta,  (antitypes)  of  ours,  that  is,  analogi- 
cal and  corresponding  types,  as  the  ark,  with  the 
waters  of  the  flood,  is  called  avtitvnoi  (an  antitype) 
of  our  baptism,  1  Pet.  iii.  21 ;  but  one  type  can- 
not be  shadowed  forth  by  another  type,  but  both 
are  brought  forward  to  represent  one  truth.  So 
circumcision  shadows  forth  not  baptism,  but  the 
grace  of  regeneration  which  is  equally  signified  by 
baptism  ]  and  the  Passover  represents,  not  the 
Lord's  Supper,  but  Christ  set  forth  in  the  supper.'^* 

*  "Nam  quod  pertendit  Bellarminus,  non  fuisse  tam 
sacramenta,  quam  sacramentorum  fi^uras,  absurdum  est ; 
siquidera  sacramentum  cum  sit  res  externa,  et  quidem  quae 
figura  est  rei  cujusdam  interiige  et  spiritualis,  non  opus  ha- 
bet  ulla  alia  figura  quareprjesentetur  :  possunt  quidem  dari 
duasfigurse  similes  et  sibi  correspondentes  unius  ejusdemque 
veritatis,  et  hactenus  sacramenta  vetei'a  fuerunt  avtC'tvTia 
nostrorum,  id  est,  figurse  analogue  et  correspondentes,  quo- 
modo  area  cum  aquis  diluvii  dicitur  avtitvTiov  baptism! 
nostri,  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  sed  una  figura  non  debet  ab  alia  figura 
adumlirari,  sed  utraquead  unius  veritatis  reprsesentationem 
adhibetur.  Ita  circumcisio,  non  baptismum,  sed  gratiam  re- 
generationis  quae  pariter  baptismo  obsignatur,  adumbravit, 
agnus  paschali.s,  non  ccenara,  sed  Christum  ipsum  in  coena 
exhibitum  reprjesentavit." — Turretini  Opera,  Tom.  lY.p. 
342.  New  York,  1847. 


72  COVENANT  OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

This  extract  from  the  great  successor  of  Calvin, 
clearly  recognizes  an  analogy  between  circumcision 
and  baptism,  and  as  distinctly  pronounces  against 
the  typitication  of  the  latter  by  the  former.  This 
analogy  may  be  traced  in  several  particulars ;  as  for 
example,  circumcision  was  the  initiating  rite  which 
secured  to  the  Jew  the  privileges  of  the  ancient 
Theocracy ;  baptism  is  the  initiating  rite  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Circumcision  was  a  prere- 
quisite to  the  Passover  ;  baptism  is  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Circumcision  was,  to  the  Jew,  a  type  of 
spiritual  renewal  and  purification  \  baptism  is,  to 
the  believer,  a  symbol  of  the  same  thing.  This 
analogy  has  doubtless  misled  many  minds  in  their 
reasonings  from  one  to  the  other.  But  it  is  to  be 
observed,  the  Pedobaptist  conclusion  depends^  not 
on  an  analogy  between  the  two  rites,  but  on  the 
assumption  that  they  ai-e  in  all  respects  identical^ 
or  else  that  the  one  typified  the  other.  Indeed 
the  analogy  is  fatal  to  infant  baptism.  Circum- 
cision was  the  visible  mark  which  distinguished 
the  ancient  covenant  people  from  all  others ;  bap- 
tism is  the  rite  which  is  appointed  as  the  visible 
separation  of  the  true  holy  people  from  the  un- 
converted world.  And  as  circumcision  was  not 
administered  to  any,  who  were  not,  either  by  birth 
or  proselytism,  already  among  the  covenant  people, 
so  the  analogy  should  require  that  baptism  should 
not  be  administered  to  any  who  are  not,  by  the 
new  birth  and  faith,  already  among  the  true  holy 
people  :  a  condition  which  excludes  infants. 

So  that  to  establish  infant  baptism  from  circum- 
cision, the  analogy  must  be  rejected,  and  identity 


POINTS  OF   DIFFERENCE.  73 

or  its  equivalent  assumed.  Baptism,  it  is  assumed, 
has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  is  essen- 
tially the  same  thing.  But  the  points  of  difference 
between  the  two  are  too  numerous  and  distinct  to 
admit  any  such  identity.  Circumcision  could  be 
given  only  to  males;  baptism  knows  no  distinc- 
tion of  sex.  Circumcision  was  limited  to  born  or 
naturalized  Jews ;  baptism  knows  no  distinction 
of  nation.  Circumcision  was  required  to  be  given 
to  native  Jews,  at  eight  days  old  ;  baptism  is  free 
to  any  age,  as  well  as  either  sex,  after  evidence  of 
faith  appears.  Circumcision  was  the  distinctive 
ordinance  of  a  National  Church,  the  members  of 
w^hich  entered  it  by  birth,  and  therefore  was  re- 
quired to  be  given  to  infants;  baptism  is  the 
distinctive  ordinance  of  a  Spiritual  Church,  whose 
privileges  none  may  share  except  those  who  give 
evidence  of  the  new  birth,  and  therefore  may  not 
be  given  to  infants.  Circumcision  was  the  sign 
of  hereditary  privileges,  and  therefore  was  required 
to  be  given  to  infants ;  baptism  is  the  sign  of 
privileges  which  flow  only  through  faith,  and 
therefore  may  not  be  given  to  infants.  Circum- 
cision required  no  antecedent  instruction  or  disci- 
pline, in  the  case  of  members  of  the  Jewish 
household,  and  therefore  might  be  given  to  ii> 
fants ;  baptism  requires,  in  all  cases,  previous 
discipleship,  and  may  not  be  given  to  infants. 
Circumcision  was  not  a  command  to  the  subject 
<)f  the  rite,  but  to  his  parents,  who  alone  were 
responsible  for  its  fulfillment ;  baptism  is  a  com- 
mand to  the  subject  of  the  ordinance,  and  he 
alone    is   responsible    for   its   fulfillment.      The 


74  COVENANT   OP   CIRCUMCISION. 

subject  of  circumcision,  in  ordinary  cases,  was 
involuntary  and  pasif^ive  in  its  reception;  the 
subject  of  baptism  is  in  all  cases  required  to  ren- 
der active  and  voluntary  obedience,  receiving  it  in 
the  exercise  of  faith.  Circumcision,  by  the  very 
terms  of  its  law,  was  a  rite  for  infants  j  baptism, 
by  the  terms  of  its  law,  excludes  infants.  So  that, 
whether  the  analogy  between  circumcision  and 
baptism  be  considered,  or  the  points  of  difference 
between  them,  the  institution  of  circumcision, 
instead  of  affording  any  argument  for  infant  bap- 
tism, is  a  decisive  refutation  of  it. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ARGUMENTS    FOR    THE    PERPETUITY    OF    THE 
COVENANT    OP    CIRCUMCISION    CONSIDERED. 

Pedobaptists,  for  the  most  part,  affirm  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  is  in  force  in  the 
Gospel  dispensation,  and  its  rite  still  remains  by 
a  substitute.  Their  principal  arguments  for  this 
position  shall  now  be  considered. 

The  argument  principally  relied  upon  to  prove 
the  perpetuity  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  is 
based  on  the  declaration,  twice  affirmed  in  the 
covenant  itself,  that  it  should  be  an  everlasting 
covenant.  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in 
their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant." 
"  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an 
everlasting  covenant." 


THE   TERM   EVERLASTING.  75 

If  the  use  of  the  word  everlasting  in  this  cove- 
nant proves  its  perpetuity,  let  us  see  what  other 
ancient  institutions  there  are  whose  perpetuity  is 
proved  by  that  same  word. 

In  the  original  institution  of  the  Passover, 
(Ex.  xii.)  after  minute  directions  are  given  for 
taking  the  lamb,  slaying  it,  sprinkling  the  blood, 
roasting  it  in  the  fire,  and  eating  it  with  un- 
leavened bread,  it  is  commanded,  ^'  You  shall 
keep  it  a  feast  hij  on  ordinance  forever;^'  the 
same  word  that  in  Gren,  xvii.  is  rendered  ever- 
lasting. After  further  directions  it  is  repeated, 
*'Ye  shall  observe  this  day  in  your  generations, 
hi/  an  ordinance  FOREVER.^'  After  further  direc- 
tions it  is  again  repeated,  "  Ye  shall  observe  this 
thing  for  an  (ordinance  to  thee,  and  to  thy  sons, 
forever/'  To  escape  the  obvious  conclusion 
here,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  Passover  had  a 
certain  typical  meaning  which  still  remains,  io 
which  the  word  everlasting  or  forever  applies; 
for  that  is  not  what  is  affirmed.  A  particular 
feast  is  described,  and  that  is  required  to  be  kept 
forever.  A  particular  day  in  the  year  is  pomted 
out,  which  is  to  be  observed  in  a  particular 
manner  forever. 

In  Lev.  xvi.,  after  describing  the  ceremonies  to 
be  observed  on  the  annual  day  of  expiation,  it  is 
said,  ''And  this  shall  be  a  statute  forever  (the 
same  word  that  is  rendered  everlasting  in  (xen. 
xvii.)  unto  you:  that  in  the  seventh  month,  on  the 
tenth  day  of  the  month,  ye  shall  ajjlict  your  souls 
and  do  no  work  at  all."  "  It  shall  be  a  Sabbath 
of  rest  unto  you,  and  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls 


76  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

by  a  statute  roREVER."  "And  tins  shall  be 
an  EVERLASTING  Statute  unto  you,  to  make  an 
atonement  for  all  their  sins  once  a  year^  The 
language  here  applies  the  word  everlasting  speci- 
fically to  that  observance  of  the  rites  of  expiation 
once  a  year,  and  in  that  specific  day,  the  tenth 
of  the  seventh  month. 

Lev.  vii.  35-37.  "For  the  wave  breast  and  the 
heave  shoulder  have  I  taken  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  from  off  the  sacrifices  of  their  peace  offer- 
ings, and  have  given  them  unto  Aaron  the  priest, 
and  unto  his  sons,  by  a  statute  forever.  This 
is  the  portion  of  the  anointing  of  Aaron,  and  of 
the  anointing  of  his  sons,  which  the  Lord  com- 
manded to  be  given  them  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  by  a  statute  forever." 

Lev.  xxiii.  41-2.  Of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
it  is  said,  "  Ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast  unto  the  Lord 
seven  days  in  the  year;  it  shall  be  a  statute  FOR- 
EVER in  your  generations :  ye  shall  celebrate  it 
in  the  seventh  month.  Ye  shall  dwell  in  booths 
seven  days.'' 

Numb,  xviii.  8, 19,  23.  "And  the  Lord  spake 
unto  Aaron,  behold  I  also  have  given  thee  the 
charge  of  mine  heave  offerings,  and  of  all  the 
hallowed  things  of  the  children  of  Israel,  unto 
thee  have  I  given  them,  and  to  thy  sons  by  an 
ordinance  FOREVER.  All  the  heave  offerings  of 
the  holy  things  which  the  children  of  Israel  offer 
unto  the  Lord,  have  I  given  thee  and  thy  sons, 
and  thy  daughters  with  thee,  by  a  statute  FOR- 
EVER :  it  is  a  covenant  of  salt  forever.  It  shall 
be  a  statute  forever  throughout  your  genera- 


IMPORT   OF   EVERLASTING.  77 

tions,  that  among  the  children  of  Israel  they 
(the  Levites)  have  no  mheritance/' 

Numb.  xix.  10,  21.  ''And  he  that  gathereth 
the  ashes  of  the  heifer,  shall  wash  his  clothes, 
and  be  unclean  until  the  even:  and  it  shall  be 
for  a  statute  forever.  It  shall  be  a  pei-petual 
(the  same  word  that  is  elsewhere  rendered  everlast- 
iny  and  forever)  statute,  that  he  that  sprinkleth 
the  water  of  separation  shall  wash  his  clothes." 

Numb.  XXV.  11,  13.  "  Phineas  the  son  of  Elea- 
zar,  the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest,  hath  turned  my 
wrath  away  from  the  children  of  Israel.  Where- 
fore say,  behold  I  give  unto  him  my  covenant  of 
peace.  And  he  shall  have  it,  and  his  seed  aj^ter 
him,  even  the  covenant  of  an  everlasting 
Priesthood.'' 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  if  the  use  of  the  word 
everlasting  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  will 
prove  its  perpetuity,  the  same  word  applied  to 
the  Aaronic  priesthood,  and  to  almost  every  in- 
stitute of  the  Mosaic  economy,  will  prove  the 
perpetuity  of  that  entire  economy. 

That  the  word  everlasting,  in  Hebrew,  Greek, 
or  English,  properly  means  endless,  is  a  perfectly 
clear  case;  while,  still  to  contend  that  it  is  never 
applied  to  subjects  or  facts  which  have  a  limited 
duration,  would  be  a  folly  which  would  defeat  its 
own  end.  The  only  principle  on  which  it  can  be 
successfully  interpreted  is,  that  it  expresses  a 
duration  co-extensive  with  the  existence  of  the 
Being,  economy  or  dispejisation,  of  which  that 
which  is  called  everlasting  is  an  attribute  or 
adjunct.  For  example :  when  it  is  applied  to 
7 


78  COVENANT   OP   CIRCUMCISION. 

anything  that  pertains  to  the  nature  of  G-od,  it 
has  its  proper  meaning  of  endless,  because  proper 
eternity  belongs  to  God.  When  it  is  applied  to 
anything  pertaining  to  the  future  existence  of  the 
soul,  it  has  its  proper  meaning  of  endless,  because 
the  soul  is  immortal.  When  it  is  applied  to  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  or  to  any  of  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutes, it  does  not  mean  endless,  but  it  expresses  a 
duration  as  long  as  the  typical  dispensation  con- 
tinued, of  which  these  were  adjuncts.  On  this 
principle,  to  what  period  of  time  would  the  epithet 
everlasting,  applied  to  this  covenant  in  Gen.  xvii., 
lead  us  to  expect  its  continuance  ?  This  question 
is  answered  by  ascertaining  to  which  dispensation 
it  belonged.  I  have  already  shown  that  it  was 
an  adjunct  of  the  typical  dispensation.  It  must 
then  have  had  an  existence  as  long  as  that  dis- 
pensation remained.  This  is  precisely  what  the 
word  everlasting,  applied  to  it,  requires. 

Ps.  cv.  8,  is  sometimes  quoted  to  prove  the 
perpetuity  of  this  covenant.  "  He  hath  remem- 
bered his  covenant  forever ;  the  word  which  he 
commanded  to  a  thousand  generations^'  Here 
we  may  observe,  (1.)  The  covenant  stipulation, 
which  God  is  represented  here  as  remembering 
forever,  and  for  a  thousand  generations,  is  dis- 
tinctly stated  in  the  11th  verse,  saying:  "Unto 
thee  will  I  give  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  lot  of 
your  inheritance."  It  must  then  be  admitted 
that  the  word  thousand  here  does  not  mean  that 
definite  number,  or  that  God  has  not  remembered 
his  covenant;  for  Israel  have  been  dispossessed 
of  that  land  for  nearly  2000  years.     (2.)    The 


IN   WHAT   SENSE   EVERLASTING.  79 

indefiniteness  of  the  expressions,  a  tliousanci,  ten 
thousand^  &c.,  in  the  poetic  parts  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, is  too  obvious  to  require  any  very  extended 
remark.  As  examples,  I  will  refer  to  the  follow- 
ing passages  :  Deut.  i.  11 ;  Job  ix.  3  ;  xxxiii.  23  ; 
Ps.  i.  10;  Ixxxiv.  10;  xc.  4;  xci.  1 ;  Isa.  xxx. 
17;  Ix.  22;  Lev.  xxvi.  8 ;  Deut.  xxxii.  30; 
xxxiii.  2;  Cant.  v.  10.  In  this  text  and  the 
context  the  word  is  interchanged  with  forever 
and  everlasting,  and  is  to  be  interpreted  on  the 
same  principles. 

Another  argument  for  the  perpetuity  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  is  based  on  a  misappli- 
cation of  the  passages  in  Galatians,  in  which  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  in  Christ  which  was  previously  revealed 
to  Abraham.  That  the  argument  may  have  all 
the  benefit  of  a  fair  statement,  I  will  transcribe 
it  verbatim  from  a  sermon,  published  by  the 
authority  of  a  Presbyterian  Synod,  before  which 
it  was  delivered  on  a  year's  appointment,  by  Rev. 
Dr.  White  of  New  York. 

^'  And  besides,  what  saith  the  New  Testament 
on  this  subject?  Does  it,  or  does  it  not  recognize 
the  Abrahamic  Covenant*  as  still  in  existence  and 

*  "  Abrahamic  Covenant."  How  wonderful  is  the  effect 
of  prejudice  on  the  perceptions  of  good  men  !  The  slightest 
inspection  of  the  New  Testament,  one  would  suppose  mtist 
show,  that  when  the  Apostles  refer  to  the  Abrahamic 
Covenant,  they  never  mean  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision, 
'  but  solely  and  invariably  the  Covenant  of  Christ;  or,  in  other 
words,  the  promise  of  the  Messiah  given  to  Abraham  at  the 
time  of  his  call,  as  recorded  Gen.  xii.  3.  This  promise  was 
renetoed  after'  the  offering  of  Isaac,  Gen.  xxii.,  and  then 
confirmed  with  an  oath.     Hence,  Paul  expressly  describes  it 


80  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

of  force  ?  We  shall  hear.  '  Know  ye,  therefore, 
that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the 
child]  en  of  Abraham.  And  the  Scriptures,  fore- 
seeing that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through 
faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham, 
saying.  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.  Christ 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ. 
Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  men  : 
though  it  be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet  if  it  be 
confirmed,  no  man  disannulleth  or  addeth  thereto. 
And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  which  was  con- 
firmed before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which 
was  430  years  after,  cannot  disannul  that  it 
should  make  the  promise  of  none  efi"ect ;  and  if 
ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise.'  These  passages 
occur  in  the  third  chapter  of  Galatians. 

"  Now  here  it  is  expressly  affirmed,  that  be- 
lievers under  the  Christian  dispensation,  are  par- 
takers of  the  blessings  which  were  promised  to 
Abraham,  and  are  recognized  as  his  spiritual 
seed."  Precisely  so,  I  answer ;  and  this  is  what 
proves  that  the  infants  of  Gentile  believers  are 
not  recognized  by  the  Apostle  as  having  anything 

as  the  Covenant  "  in  Christ,"  "  confirmed  before  of  God."' 
Compare  Heb.  vi.  13-20.  Indeed  this  distinctive  use  of 
the  terms  in  question  is  found  in  Peter  at  the  very  begin- 
ning. Acts  iii.  25.  "  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets, 
and  of  the  Covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers, 
saying  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kin- 
dreds of  the  earth  be  blessed."  It  is  time  that  this  scrip- 
tural use  of  terms  were  better  understood.  J.  n.  b. 


,DR.  white's  argument.  81 

to  do  with  it.  Infants  of  Gentile  believers  are 
neither  of  Abraham's  natural  seed,  nor  of  his 
spiritual  seed ;  for  it  is  ^^  believers"  who  "  are 
recognized  as  his  spiritual  seed;"  and  the  only 
way  that  the  natural  seed  of  believers  are  brought 
in  here,  is  by  the  compound  double  sense  of  the 
word  "seed"  before  illustrated.  The  argument 
refutes  itself.  The  learned  Doctor  continues : 
"It  is  also  expressly  affirmed  that  Christ  came  in 
the  flesh,  and  was  crucified,  not  to  destroy  the 
covenant,  but  to  fulfill  its  provisions,  '  that  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles 
through  him.'  This  certainly  could  not  be  true,  if 
the  covenant  had  ceased  to  exist.  And  it  is  further 
expressly  affirmed,  that  the  law  which  was  given 
at  Sinai,  could  have  no  efi'ect  to  disannul  the 
covenant,  which  was  430  years  older  than  itself, 
and  which  had  been  confirmed  by  God  as  a  per- 
petual covenant.  See  Gen.  xvii.  7."  Now  this 
certainly  proves  that  the  covenant  of  which  Paul 
speaks,  still  exists,  and  is  a  perpetual  covenant  j 
and  it  also  proves  most  conclusively  that  he  is 
not  speaking  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 
He  is  speaking  of  a  covenant  which  was  revealed 
to  Abraham  430  years  before  the  law.  But  I 
have  chronologically  proved  that  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  was  not  made  until  406  years  before 
the  law,  instead  of  430.  The  Apostle  tells  us 
precisely  what  covenant  he  was  here  speaking  of, 
in  one  of  the  verses  quoted  above  by  the  Doctor : 
"  And  the  Scriptures  foreseeing  that  God  would 
justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before 
the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall 
7* 


82  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

all  nations  be  blessed;"  quoting  from  Gen.  xii.  3, 
and  not  from  Gen.  xvii.  Then,  to  establish  the 
point  with  entire  certainty,  he  fixes  the  date  of  it 
— 430  years  before  the  laW;  which  carries  us  24 
years  before  Gen.  xvii.  to  the  same  point  with 
his  quotation,  Gen.  xii.  3.  Can  Dr.  White  deceive 
himself  so  much  as  to  suppose  that  this  covenant, 
430  years  before  the  law,  has  a  reference  to  Gen. 
xvii.  7,  to  which  he  refers?  And  if  he  can,  does 
he  expect  that  everybody  else  will  be  deceived 
with  him  ?     None  but  those  who  wish  to  be. 

The  argument  refutes  itself.  The  fallacy  is  the 
one  I  exposed  at  length  in  Chapter  III.,  to  which 
I  will  again  refer  the  reader. 

The  eleventh  chapter  of  Romans  is  much  relied 
upon  to  prove  the  perpetuity  of  the  covenant  of 
circumcision^  and  the  identity  of  the  church  esta- 
blished upon  it  with  the  Gospel  church.  If  this 
chapter  be  carefully  read,  it  will  be  perceived  that 
there  is  not  one  word  said  in  it  of  any  covenant 
with  Abraham,  or  anybody  else  through  him — 
not  one  word  of  circumcision,  or  of  baptism,  or  of 
any  church  whatever.  If  it  is  said  that  the  figure 
of  the  good  olive  tree  indicates  a  church,  I  will 
ask,  in  the  pertinent  language  of  another,*  "What 
organization  is  meant  by  the  wild  olive  tree  from 
which  the  Gentiles,  as  branches,  are  cut  off?" 
The  wild  olive  tree,  by  universal  admission,  ex- 
presses a  state  or  condition  of  not  being  in  favor 
with  God ;  and  the  good  olive  tree  must,  by  all 
the  laws  of  antithesis,  denote  a  state  of  favor  with 

*  Rev.  Edmund  Tumey,  in  "  Scriptural  Law  of  Baptism." 


THE   OLIVE   TREE.  83 

God,  which  certainly  does  not  necessarilj^  imply  a 
church  relation.  The  truths,  then,  which  par- 
ticularly bear  on  our  subject,  taught  by  the  Apos- 
tles in  this  chapter,  are,  that  the  Jews  were  cut 
off  from  the  distinction  of  being  the  peculiar  and 
favored  people  of  God,  which  they  had  enjoyed 
from  the  time  of  Abraham,  not  because  they 
failed  in  fulfilling  the  condition  imposed  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  or  the  conditions  super- 
added at  Sinai — for  it  appears  that  they  were 
then  very  punctilious  about  these,  and  continue 
to  be  to  this  day — but  for  unbelief,  (verse  20,) 
and  the  rejection  of  Christ;  i.  e.,  for  failing  to 
see  that  circumcision  and  all  the  ceremonial  observ- 
ances loere  appointed  as  types  of  the  true  sacrifice 
and  the  spiritual  church,  and  consequently  ivere 
totally  valueless  after  the  offering  of  that  sacrifice 
and  the  establishment  of  the  spiritual  church.  If 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  were  then  in  force, 
the  observance  of  its  conditions  by  the  Jews, 
(among  which  there  is  no  mention  of  faith,) 
would  have  secured  them  the  advantages  of  still 
being  the  peculiar  people  of  God ;  and  the  fact 
that  they  did  fulfill  those  conditions,  and  yet 
were  cut  off  from  those  privileges,  proves  that  the 
covenant  was  7iot  in  force,  and  that  being  abro- 
gated, the  observance  of  its  conditions  would 
secure  no  advantage  whatever.  And  now,  the 
Apostle  tells  us,  believers,  whether  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles, enjoy  this  distinction,  not  by  virtue  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  nor  by  baptism,  whether 
administered  in  infancy  or  adult  age,  but  by 
FAITH.     "  Because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken 


84  COVENANT   or   CIRCUMCISION. 

off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.^^  So  that  this 
passage,  instead  of  proving  the  perpetuity  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  and  the  identity  of  the 
Abrahamic  with  the  Gospel  church,  proves  the 
contrary.  Up  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  Grod  had 
determined  to  bless  the  Jews  on  the  principles  of 
the  covenant  of  circumcision;  after  that,  if  he 
blessed  them  at  all,  it  must  be  on  other  principles. 
The  Jews  obstinately  adhered  to  the  principles  of 
that  covenant,  determined  to  be  blessed  so  or  not 
at  all.  The  result  we  know.  They  were  blessed 
not  at  all,  instead  of  being  blessed  so.  Are  not 
our  brethren  following  a  dangerous  precedent  in 
their  tenacious  adherence  to  that  same  covenant?* 

*  The  remarks  made  above  will,  I  trust,  be  deemed  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  Rom.  xi.  will  by  no  means  sustain  the 
position  which  it  is  brought  forward  to  support.  I  am, 
however,  so  little  satisfied  with  the  views  which  are  gene- 
rally given  of  the  vei'ses  in  question,  that  I  venture  a  brief 
exposition  in  addition. 

Three  principal  points  are  brought  out  in  the  chapter. 
1.  God  has  not  utterly  cast  otf  Israel,  but  will  eventually 
bring  them  into  a  state  of  favor  with  himself  on  the  princi- 
ples of  the  gospel.  2.  That  event  will  be  a  great  blessing 
to  the  Gentile  world.  3.  Believing  Gentiles  have  no  reason 
to  exult  over  them  in  their  depressed  state  as  unbelievers.  . 

The  bearing  of  the  first  ten  verses  on  the  first  of  these 
points  is  sufficiently  obvious  to  need  no  remark.  The 
second  begins  to  appear  at  the  11th  verse:  "  I  say,  then, 
have  they  stumbled  that  they  should  fall"  irrecoverably? 
"  God  forbid  !  But  rather  through  their  fall,  salvation  is 
come  unto  the  Gentiles  for  to  provoke  them  to  jealousy;" 
i.  e.  provoke  the  Jews  to  emulation,  that  they,  by  believ- 
ing, may  obtain  the  same  privileges.  Verse  12  :"  Now  if 
the  fall  of  them  be  the  riches  of  the  world,  and  the  dimin- 
ishing of  them  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more 
their  fulness  V"  See  Luke  xxiv.  47  ;  Acts  iii.  26  ;  Rom.  i. 
16  ;  Acts  xiii.  46.  The  15th  verse  states  in  stronger  temis 
the  advantages  which  the  Gentile  world  may  expect  to 


COVENANT   ABROGATED.  85 

CHAPTER  X. 

THE    COVENANT    OF   CIRCUMCISION    ABROGATED. 

That  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  has  expired, 
and  its  rite  is  totally  abolished,  its  typical  signifi- 
cation only  remaining,  is  implied  in  many  of  the 
arguments  already  advanced.  Still,  that  the 
point  may  be  rendered  perfectly  clear,  it  may  be 
desirable  to  have  the  arguments  which  establish 
it  presented  by  themselves  in  consecutive  order. 

When  I  admit  that  the  typical  signification  of 
the  rite  of  circumcision  remains,  I  do  not  wish 

receive  from  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  16th  verse 
gives  a  reason  why  this  maj'  be  expected.  "  For  if  the  first 
fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy  ;  and  if  the  root  be  holy, 
so  are  the  branches."  Here  are  two  comparisons  to  express 
the  same  thing,  and  their  members  correspond  each  to  each. 
"  First  fruit,"  in  the  first  comparison,  is  equivalent  to 
"  root"  in  the  second.  In  like  manner,  "lump,"  in  the 
first,  is  equivalent  to  "  branches"  in  the  second.  The  Apos- 
tle shows  that  great  advantages  may  be  expected  to  flow 
to  the  world  at  large  from  the  conversion  of  the  body  of  the 
Jews,  by  the  great  benefits  the  Gentiles  had  already  received 
from  the  first  conversions  from  them.  In  the  first  com- 
parison, these  early  conversions  are  denoted  by  the  "  first 
fruit,"  while  the  mass  of  the  nation  converted  are  denoted 
by  "  the  lump."  Again,  these  early  conversions,  as  related 
to  the  body  of  the  nation  when  converted,  are  as  the  "root" 
to  the  "  branches."  Now  these  early  conversions  were 
holy,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  They  were  conse- 
crated to  God.  God  accepted  them,  and  made  them  the 
instruments  of  unspeakable  blessings  to  the  world.  From 
them  came  the  Apostles,  and  the  first  martyrs,  and  all  the 
honored  heralds  of  salvation  of  the  first  age  of  the  Church. 
The  writers  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  were  Jews.  If 
they  then,  the  first  fruit  and  the  root,  were  thus  accepted 


86  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

that  to  be  understood  as  any  exception  to  the  total 
abrogation  of  the  covenant  and  the  rite.  The 
typical  meaning  of  the  Aaronic  priegthood  re- 
mains;  the  priesthood  itself  is  abolished.     The 

of  God,  and  made  the  means  of  such  blessings  to  the  world, 
what  might  not  be  expected  when  the  mass  of  the  nation 
should  be  converted,  and  as  the  '•  lump"  and  the  "  branches" 
be  consecrated  to  God  ?  It  would  be  to  the  world  "  like 
life  from  the  dead." 

Here,  on  this  word  "branches,"  the  Apostle  makes  his 
transition  from  his  second  to  his  third  point,  viz.,  the 
caution  to  believing  Gentiles  not  to  boast  against  the  Jews, 
even  in  their  unbelieving  and  depressed  state ;  and  had  he 
consti'ucted  his  discourse  on  artificial  principles  he  could 
not  have  made  his  transition  more  easily  and  elegantly  than 
he  does  by  introducing  this  figure.  His  discourse  turns 
upon  it  as  upon  a  smooth,  well-polished  hinge.  As  the 
mass  of  the  Jews,  when  they  shall  be  convei'ted,  are  con- 
sidered as  bearing  to  the  first  believers,  who  were  Jews,  the 
relation  of  branches  to  a  root,  so  the  unbelieving  Jews  are 
considered  as  bearing  to  them  the  relation  of  branches 
broken  off.  The  Apostles  were  directed  to  begin  their 
labors  with  the  Jews.  They  did  so,  and  continued  them 
till  their  rejection  of  the  Gospel  and  the  persecution  of  the 
saints  scattered  them  abroad,  and  paved  the  way  for  the 
pi-eaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  Thus  both  the 
facts  spoken  of  in  this  chapter  took  place  at  once.  They 
were  "broken  off  because  of  unbelief"  from  the  privilege 
which  their  original  relation  to  God  secured  them,  and  their 
fall  became  the  riches  of  the  world.  The  Apostle  proceeds, 
modifying  the  sense  of  the  word  "  branches"  to  the  degi-ee 
and  in  the  manner  I  liave  explained  above,  (verses  17,  18). 
"  And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off",  and  thou, 
being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafl^ed  in  amongst  them,  and 
with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive 
tree,  boast  not  against  the  branches;  but  if  thou  boast, 
thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee  "  That  is,  the 
Jews  owe  you  nothing,  but  you  owe  them  everything. 
Christ,  the  Apostles,  and  the  ministers  by  whom  ye  believed 
were  Jews  :  they,  as  the  root,  bear  you,  not  you  them. 
Ver.  19,  20,  23.  "  Thou  wilt  say  then,"  I  have  reason  to 
boast,  for  "  the  branches  were  broken  off  that  I  might  be 
graffed  in.     Well ;  because  of  unbelief  they  wei-e  broken 


ITS   LIMITATION.  87 

typical  meaning  of  the  Passover  remains;  the  Pass- 
over itself  is  abolished.  The  typical  meaning  of 
the  ceremonial  sacrifices  remains ;  the  sacrifices 
are  abolished.  So  the  typical  meaning  of  circum- 
cision remains;  circumcision  itself  is  abolished, 
and  the  covenant  has  expired. 

1.  By  the  advent  of  Christ,  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  expired  by  its  own  limitation.  Is  it 
asked  how  shall  we  know  what  its  limitation  was? 
I  answer,  we  may  know  both  by  its  nature,  and 
the  purpose  to  be  accomplished  by  it.  In  its  na- 
ture it  is  a  part  of  the  law.  It  is  conceived  in  a 
legal  spirit,  and  expressed  in  legal  terms.  Its 
nature  and  spirit  are  such  that  it  could  not  exist 
under  a  dispensation  of  grace  and  faith.  When 
that  dispensation  was  introduced  it  must  have 
expired. 

Its  purpose  was  accomplished  by  the  death  of 
Christ.  What  was  its  purpose  ?  It  was  to  keep 
the  nation  of  Israel  distinct  from  all  other  nations, 
until  Christ  the  promised  seed  of  Abraham  should 
come,  in  whom  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should 
be  blessed.  This  was  necessary  in  order  that 
Christ  might  appear  distinctly  and  plainly  before 

off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.  And  they  also,  if  they 
abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  graffed  in,  for  God  is 
able  to  graft  them  in  again." 

The  only  reference  or  allusion  in  this  chapter  to  Abra- 
ham, the  covenant  of  circumcision,  or  the  former  ecclesi- 
,  astical  state  of  the  Jews,  consists  in  the  implication  that 
£he  Jews  had  been  the  favored  people  of  God.  The  good 
olive  tree  represents  tlie  privileges  which  flow  from  the 
Gospel,  through  faith,  including  those  of  the  visible  Gospel 
church,  not  the  Abrahamic  church,  nor  indeed  any  church, 
to  the  exclusion  of  other  spiritual  blessings. 


88  OLD   COVENANT   CHURCH. 

the  world.  And  the  three  things  provided  in  this 
covenant  kept  them  distinct :  first,  God  was  in  a 
peculiar  sense  their  God ;  secondly,  they  had  the 
land  of  Canaan  to  dwell  in,  which  prevented  their 
being  scattered  among  the  nations ;  thirdly,  the 
rite  of  circumcision  gave  them  an  additional  pe- 
culiarity, further  tending  to  the  same  result.  But 
when  Christ  came,  all  the  objects  of  the  covenant 
being  accomplished,  it  necessarily  expired. 

2.  The  nature  and  constitution  of  the  Church 
founded  on  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  is  totally 
distinct  from  the  Gospel  Church,  and  opposed  to 
it  in  every  particular.  The  one  was  a  National 
Church  ;  the  other  a  "  kingdom  not  of  this  world.'' 
The  one  was  entered  by  the  natural  birth;  the 
other  requires  the  spiritual  birth  as  a  prerequisite 
for  admission.  The  one  insists  on  outward  forms 
only ;  the  other  requires  spiritual  worship.  The 
one  requires  ceremonial  purity  only;  the  other 
holiness  of  heart.  So  different  are  they,  that  they 
cannot  co-exist,  except  as  antagonists.  If  God 
established  them  both,  he  must  have  removed  the 
one,  before  he  established  the  other. 

I  would  be  far  from  affirming  that  God  did  not 
as  truly  require  holiness  of  heart  in  the  ancient, 
as  in  the  Gospel  dispensation.  He  has  in  all  ages, 
and  under  all  dispensations,  required  of  men,  re- 
pentance, faith,  holiness  of  heart,  and  spiritual 
worship.  But  I  affirm  that  he  did  not  require 
these  in  the  ancient  dispensation,  as  conditions  of 
church  memhership.  Joab,  for  aught  that  appears, 
was  in  as  good  standing  in  the  Jewish  Church  as 


,  PREACHING   OF   JOHN.  89 

David  was,  though  the  one  was  a  child  of  God, 
and  the  other  the  child  of  the  Devil. 

3.  I  have  shown  from  direct  Scripture  testi- 
mony, that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  an 
essential  part  of  the  ceremonial  law  of  Moses. 
But  that  law  was  abrogated  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
with  all  its  appendages. 

4.  I  have  shown  that  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision was  identical  with  the  Old  Covenant,  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  New.  But  Paul  informs  us  in 
the  8th  chapter  of  Hebrews,  that  the  old  covenant 
is  done  away. 

5.  In  the  opening  of  the  gospel  dipensation, 
under  the  preaching  of  John,  the  abrogation  of 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  is,  to  say  the  least, 
pretty  strongly  intimated.  "  Bring  forth  fruits 
meet  for  repentance,  and  think  not  to  say  within 
yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  father.'' 
Now  this  is  aimed  directly  at  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision. The  plea  of  any  title  to  religious 
privileges  on  the  ground  of  descent  from  Abraham, 
has  its  original  foundation  on  that  covenant.  The 
Baptist,  by  pronouncing  the  plea  no  longer  valid, 
establishes  equally  the  invalidity  of  the  covenant 
on  which  the  plea  is  founded. 

6.  When  the  gospel  dispensation  was  fully  in- 
troduced and  the  Gospel  Church  set  up,  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  were  entirely 
repudiated.  No  person,  by  virtue  of  parentage, 
Or  descent  from  Abraham,  or  any  body  else,  was 
admitted  to  its  privileges.  The  great  Commission 
excluded  from  baptism  all  who  were  not  disciples. 


90  COVENANT   OP   CIRCUMCISION. 

and  on  these  principles  the  Apostles  uniformly 
acted. 

7.  The  Apostles,  in  full  council,  decided  that  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  is  not  in  force  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  This  is  an  important  and  decisive 
fact,  and  is  worthy  of  careful  attention.  The 
account  of  it  is  contained  in  Acts  xv.  The  first 
five  verses  state  the  controversy,  in  which  we  find 
that  the  Judaizing  teachers  enforced  upon  the 
Gentile  converts  circumcision  and  the  observance 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  as  parts  of  one  system,  based 
upon  the  same  authority,  and  standing  or  falling 
together.  We  find,  from  the  recorded  opinions  of 
Peter  and  James,  that  the  Apostles  also  regarded 
them  as  parts  of  one  system,  based  upon  the  same 
authority,  and  therefore  decided  that  they  could 
not  be  enforced  upon  Gentile  Christians.  And  this 
was  a  virtual  prohibition  upon  the  whole  church, 
unless  it  be  supposed  that  God  designed  that  there 
should  be  a  permanent  distinction  in  the  church 
between  Jews  and  Gentiles ;  which  I  think  few 
will  contend  for  in  the  light  of  such  passages  as 
the  following— Eph.  ii.  14-18.  Col.  ii.  1-1.  Gal. 
iii.  26,  29. 

The  fact  that  the  Jewish  converts  practised  cir- 
cumcision in  the  apostolic  age,  does  not  affect  this 
argument.  There  were  many  reasons  existing 
why  the  Jewish  converts  did  not  at  once  forsake 
their  old  ritual.  Under  the  circumstances  this  was 
hardly  to  be  expected.  The  Apostles  themselves 
were  full  of  Jewish  prejudices  when  they  began 
their  work,  and  it  was  not  without  much  instruc- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  added  to  much  study  and 


PERMITTED   TO   THE   JEWS.  91 

observation,  that  they  were  able  to  surmount  them; 
could  their  converts,  without  those  advantages,  be 
expected  at  once  to  rise  above  such  prejudices  ? 

It  should  also  be  kept  in  mind,  that  not  only  was 
the  observance  of  circumcision  permitted  to  the 
Jewish  converts,  hut  this  permission  also  extended 
to  the  entire  ceremonial  laio.  This  is  clear  from 
the  passage  now  under  consideration,  and  chap. 
XX.  20,  21,  is  still  clearer  to  the  same  point.  !f 
then,  this  apostolic  permission  to  the  Jewish 
converts,  of  adhering  to  circumcision,  is  proof  that 
it  was  not  abrogated,  the  same,  permission  in  re- 
gard to  the  entire  ceremonial  law,  is  proof  that 
that  also  was  not  abolished  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
If  the  fact  that  Paul  circumcised  Timothy,  (Acts 
xvi.  3,)  is  proof  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
remained  in  force,  the  fact  that  he  shaved  his  head 
in  Ceuchrea,  (xviii.  18,)  and  that  he  went  to 
Jerusalem  to  the  Temple  to  fulfill  a  vow  and  bring 
sacrifices,  (xxi.  24,  26,)  will  prove  that  the  sacri- 
ficial laws  of  Moses  remained  in  force.  The 
truth  is,  we  are  not  to  consider  that  the  Jewish 
dispensation  continued  in  full  force  up  to  a  certain 
time,  then  suddenly  ceased,  and  the  full  day  of 
the  Gospel  dispensation  at  once  succeeded  it.  They 
overlap  each  other  somewhat.  The  Jewish  dispen- 
sation certainly  continued  in  force  until  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  the  gospel  sun  did  not  rise  until 
after  that  event ;  yet  the  gospel  day  dawned  with 
•  the  ministry  of  John.  And  as  the  morning  twi- 
light of  the  gospel  day  began  before  the  death  of 
Christ,  so  some  shades  of  the  Jewish  night,  or  ra- 
ther morning  clouds  and  mists,  might  be  expected 


92  COVENANT   OP   CIRCUMCISION. 

to  remain  some  time  after  that,  hovering  ahout 
that  solemn  and  splendid  Temple,  afiectiug  in  a 
certain  degree  the  minds,  and  obscuring  the  per- 
ceptions of  Jewish  Christians  while  it  stood. 

8.  If  the  covenant  of  circumcision  were  still  in 
force,  how  could  Paul  write  as  he  did  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  ?  What  powerful  reason- 
ing, what  strong  invective,  what  vehement  expos- 
tulation, does  he  direct  both  against  the  rite  of 
circumcision,  and  against  the  principles  on  which 
the  rite  is  founded  !  Thus  (chap.  i.  6,  7,)  he 
says,  "  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  removed  from 
the  grace  of  him  that  called  you,  into  another 
gospel.  Which  is  not  another,  {i.  e.  is  not  a 
gospel) ;  but  there  are  some  that  trouble  you,  and 
would  pervert  the  gospel  of  Christ/' — Chap.  v. 
11,  12.  "And  I  brethren,  if  I  yet  preach  cir- 
cumcision, why  do  I  yet  suffer  persecution  ?  then 
is  the  offence  of  the  cross  ceased.  I  would  they 
were  even  cut  off  which  trouble  you." — Chap.  vi. 
11,  12.  "  Ye  see  how  large  a  letter  I  have  written 
to  you  with  mine  own  hand.  As  many  as  desire 
to  make  a  fair  shoiv  in  the  flesh,  they  constrain  you 
to  be  circumcised."  These  passages  show  against 
whom,  and  what,  the  Epistle  is  directed.  Hear 
him  further,  chap.  iii.  1,  3  :  "  0  foolish  Galatians, 
who  hath  bewitched  you !  Are  ye  so  foolish  T 
having  begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye  now  made 
perfect  by  the  flesh  1"  Again,  in  the  fourth  chap- 
ter, he  begins  an  expostulation  which  continues 
through  that  chapter,  and  extends  into  the  next. 
Verse  9  :  "  But  now,  after  that  ye  have  known 
God,  or  rather  are  known  of  God,  how  turn  ye 


ARGUMENT   FROM   GALATIANS.  93 

again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements,  where- 
unto  ye  desire  to  be  in  bondage?''  Ver.  19,  21  : 
"  My  little  children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth 
until  Christ  be  formed  in  you,  I  desire  to  be  pre- 
sent with  you  now,  and  to  change  my  voice,  for  I 
stand  in  doubt  of  you.  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire 
to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not  hear  the  law  V 
He  then  introduces  the  allegory  of  Hagar  and 
Sarah,  and  their  sons,  quotes  the  direction  to 
^^cast  out  the  bond-woman  and  her  son,''  and 
adds,  ^'  So  then,  brethren,  we  are  not  children  of 
the  bond-woman,  but  of  the  free.  Stand  fast  there- 
fore in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made 
us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  in  the  yoke  of 
bondage.  (Compare  Acts  xv.  10.)  Behold,  I  Paul 
say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  he  circumcised  Ghi'ist 
shall  profit  you  nothing.  For  I  testify  to  every 
man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do 
the  whole  law." 

It  is  truly  a  matter  of  astonishment  that  any 
man  can  read  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and 
yet  gravely  affirm  that  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion is  still  in  force,  and  is  the  covenant  of  grace. 
Paul's  reasonings  are  directed  as  much  against  the 
principles  on  which  the  rite  is  founded,  as  against 
the  rite  itself. 

Is  it  said,  that  Paul's  arguments  are  directed 
against  the  rite  as  founded  on  the  Mosaic  law, 
and  not  as  founded  on  the  covenant  in  Gen.  xvii.  ? 
The  answer  is  obvious.  Was  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision founded  on  the  covenant  in  Gen.  xvii.,  or 
was  it  not  ?  Everybody  responds,  it  was.  Will 
then  any  one  contend  that  Paul  represents  the 


94  COVENANT  OF  CIRCUMCISION. 

case  contrary  to  the  very  letter  of  scripture  ?  But 
you  insist,  Paul  does  represent  it  as  founded  on 
the  Mosaic  law.  True,  and  yet  the  fact  is  indis- 
putable that  it  was  founded  on  the  covenant  in 
Gen.  xvii.  It  is  not  even  re-enacted  any  where 
else.  Now,  unless  the  Covenant  in  Gen.  xvii.  and 
the  Mosaic  law  are  inseparable  parts  of  one  sys- 
tem, so  that  when  the  last  is  mentioned  the  first 
is  included,  Paul  stands  convicted  of  representing 
this  matter  contrary  to  the  very  letter  of  scripture. 
9.  In  the  second  chapter  of  Colossians,  Paul 
declares  that  Christ  blotted  out  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  and  nailed  it  to  his  cross.  He  begins 
at  the  8th  verse^  "  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you 
through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tra- 
dition of  men,  after  the  rudiments  (the  same  word 
is  translated  "elements"  in  Gal.  iv.  9,  "beggarly 
elements,")  of  the  world,  and  not  after  Christ. 
And  ye  are  complete  in  him,  in  whom  also  ye  are 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands ;"  as  much  as  to  say  ye  have  no  need  of 
the  Jewish  circumcision  which  is  made  with  hands. 
"  And  you,  being  dead  in  your  sins  and  the  un- 
circnmcision  of  your  flesh,  hath  he  quickened 
together  with  him — blotting  out  the  handwriting 
[written  code]  of  ordinances  that  was  against  uSy 
that  was  contrary  to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way, 
nailing  it  to  his  cross.''  That  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision is  included  in  this  "  handwriting  of 
ordinances,"  is  plain  from  the  connection.  That 
covenant  was  contrary  to  them,  because  it  was 
a  charter  of  peculiar  privileges  to  Jews.  And 
Paul  informs  them  that  since  Christ  had  blotted 


NAILED   TO   THE   CROSS.  95 

it  out,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  and  nailed  it  to 
his  cross,  the  way  was  open  for  their  being  quick- 
ened together  with  him,  notwithstanding  they 
were  dead  in  sins,  and  the  imcircumcision  of  their 
flesh,  i.  e.  had  never  received  the  Jewish  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision. The  handwriting,  that  is,  the  cove- 
nant, or  law  of  circumcision  is,  with  all  the  typical 
ordinances,  blotted  out,  and  nailed  to  the  cross. 
Is  it  well  to  attempt  to  restore  it  ? 

10.  In  Eph.  ii.  11-16,  Paul  declares  that 
Christ  has  aholhhed  in  his  flesh,  the  ordinance  or 
covenant  of  circumcision.  "  Wherefore  remember 
that  ye  being  in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh, 
who  are  called  uncircumcision  by  that  which  is 
called  the  circumcisiori  in  the  flesh  made  by  hands, 
that  at  that  time  ye  were  without  Christ,  being 
aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having 
uo  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world.  But 
now  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  sometime  were  afar 
ofi",  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For 
he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and 
hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition 
between  us,  having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the  en- 
mity, even  the  laio  of  commandments  contained  in 
ordinances,  for  to  make  in  himself  of  twain,  one 
new  man,  so  making  peace."  Now  the  Apostle 
declares  that  whatever  ordinances  tended  to  sepa- 
rate Jews  and  Gentiles,  Christ  abolished.  And 
■  every  ordinance  that  indicated  that  the  Jews  had 
any  peculiar  privileges  as  a  nation,  was  a  middle 
wall  of  partition.  And  of  all  the  Jewish  ordi- 
nances, none   indicated  this   more   clearly  than 


96  COVENANT  OP  CIRCUMCISION. 

circumcision.  This  is  expressed  in  the  eleventh 
verse.  The  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  first 
charter  of  peculiar  privileges  to  the  Jews.  And  if 
the  ordinance  of  circumcision  was  abolished,  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  was,  for  in  no  other  place 
in  the  five  books  of  Moses  is  circumcision  ordained 
as  a  general  law  to  Israel;  than  in  Gen.  xvii., 
where  it  is  a  covenant. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

CIRCUMCISION   HAS   NO    SUBSTITUTE. 

Pedobaptists  generally  admit  that  circumci- 
sion is  abolished,  but  they  also  claim  that  when  it 
was  abolished ;  baptism  was  introduced  as  its  sub- 
stitute. It  is  surprising  that  this  assertion  should 
be  so  often  made,  in  regard  to  a  point  which 
ought  to  have  clear  scripture  proof,  and  so  little 
attempt  be  made  to  produce  any.  Dr.  White,  in 
his  sermon  before  referred  to,  makes  the  assertion 
as  usual,  without  referring  to  a  single  text  to  sup- 
port it.  The  substance  of  his  argument  is  the 
following  :  "  The  seal  of  a  covenant  is  no  part 
of  the  covenant  itself;  it  is  a  mere  appendage, 
wholly  distinct  from  the  compact  which  it  ratifies. 
It  is  liable,  therefore,  to  be  separated  from  it  ]  to 
be  removed  or  changed;  and  that  too  when  no 
change  takes  place  in  the  covenant  itself.  There 
is  a  manifest  reason  why  circumcision  should  pass 
away  with  the. law  of  ceremonies;  but  is  there 


HAS   NO   SUBSTITUTE.  97 

any  reason  why  the  covenant  shoukl  be  left  with- 
out a  token  or  seal  ?  We  surely  know  of  none. 
If  the  original  seal  is  removed,  we  look  for  an- 
other in  its  place.  Has  the  covenant  then  a  new 
seal?  Upon  this  point,  among  Christians,  there 
happens  to  be  no  dispute.  Baptism  is  universally 
received  by  those  who  do  not  deny  the  existence 
of  all  external  ordinances,  as  the  sign  and  badge 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  or  of  a  Christian 
profession  under  the  new  dispensation.  Is  it 
asked,  does  it  take  the  place  of  circumcision  ?  We 
answer,  no  denomination  of  evangelical  Christians 
uses  it  for  any  other  purpose. '^ 

Here  are  almost  as  many  errors  as  there  are 
lines.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  assumed  that  the 
terms  "  token''  and  "  seal"  are  synonymous.  I 
have  shown  that  they  are  not,  (pp.  65,  66).  Again, 
it  is  assumed  that  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant.  I  have  shown  that  it  was 
a  seal  of  no  covenant,  but  of  the  righteousness  of 
Abraham's  faith.  Then  it  is  said  that  the  seal 
of  a  covenant  is  no  part  of  the  covenant  itself;  it 
is  a  mere  appendage,  liable  to  be  separated  from 
it,  to  be  removed  or  changed.  Now  it  would 
certainly  have  done  something  towards  strength- 
ening this  position,  had  Dr.  White  produced  an 
example  of  what  he  afi&rms  generally  of  covenants. 
From  all  the  covenants  which  God  has  ever 
made  with  men,  not  a  single  example  of  a  change 
of  the  seal  or  token  can  be  produced,  unless  the 
one  under  consideration  furnish  one.  Then,  if 
from  an  examination  of  the  different  covenants 
which  God  has  made  with  men,  the  general  prin- 


98  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION 

ciple  had  been  established,  that  the  token  or  seal 
is  no  part  of  the  covenant  itself,  but  a  mere  ap- 
pendage, how  could  this  be  affirmed  of  the  cove- 
nant in  Gen.  xvii.,  in  the  face  of  the  express 
terms  of  it  ?  "■  Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant. 
This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  shall  keep  ;  every 
man  child  among  you  shall  he  circumcised.  My 
covenant  shall  be  in  your  jiesh  for  an  everlast- 
ing covenant.  And  the  uncircumcised  man-child, 
whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that 
soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people )  he  hath 
broken  my  covenant."  How  in  the  face  of  these 
express  declarations  any  man  can  affirm  that  cir- 
cumcision is  no  part  of  the  covenant,  but  a  mere 
appendage,  is  certainly  beyond  ordinary  compre- 
hension. Again  he  asks,  "  Is  there  any  reason 
why  the  covenant  should  be  left  without  a  token 
or  seal  ?"  No  one  claims  that  it  was  left  without 
a  token.  God  declared  that  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision, as  its  token,  should  be  coeval  with  the 
covenant  itself,  and  it  was.  Both  passed  away  at 
once.  Again  he  assumes  that  there  is  no  dispute 
among  Christians  that  baptism  is  a  new  seal  of 
the  old  Abrahamic  covenant !  A  Professor  of 
Theology  in  New  York  as  ignorant  as  this  of  the 
views  of  Christians  all  around  him  !  Again,  he 
assumes  that  the  sign  and  badge  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  is  the  same  thing  as  a  sign  and 
badge  of  a  Christian  profession.  The  reputation 
of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  is  a  sufficient 
guarantee,  that  Dr.  White's  theological  instruc- 
tion is  not  all  as  loose-jointed  as  this.  Again  he 
says,  "  Is  it  asked,  does  baptism  take  the  place  of 


DR.  white's  argument.  99 

circumcision  ?  We  answer,  no  denomination  of 
Christians  uses  it  for  any  other  purpose.'^  What 
an  assertion !  Does  not  Dr.  White  know  that 
one  denomination  of  Christians  uses  baptism  for 
some  other  purpose  than  as  a  substitute  for  cir- 
cumcision ?  viz. J  for  the  same  purposes  that  the 
Apostles  did — as  a  symbol  of  the  burial  and  re- 
surrection of  Christ,  of  the  believer's  separation 
from  sin,  and  of  his  future  resurrection  from  the 
dead  and  eternal  glorification.     Rom.  vi.  3. 

This  is  the  substance  of  Dr.  White's  argument 
to  prove  that  baptism  is  the  substitute  of  circum- 
cision.    Not  a  text  of  Scripture  does  he  quote. 

There  is  a  text,  however,  usually  quoted  to 
prove  this  point.  It  is  Col.  ii.  11,  12:  ''In 
whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumci- 
sion made  without  hands^  in  putting  off  the  body 
of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of 
Christ :  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye 
also  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God.''  Now  I  cannot  help  remark- 
ing that  our  brethren  must  be  in  an  unpleasant 
dilemma  on  this  text.  In  order  to  make  it  say 
anything  at  all  on  the  question  whether  baptism 
is  a  substitute  for  circumcision,  they  must  admit 
that  it  speaks  of  literal  water  baptism.  But  this 
cuts  off  their  favorite  sprinkling ;  for  the  baptism 
here  is  immersion,  and  can  be  nothing  else — 
"  huried  with  him  in  baptism  wherein  ye  also  are 
risen  with  him."  To  escape  this  consequence,  they 
are  obliged  to  deny  that  the  reference  is  to  literal 
baptism ;  and  then  it  is  of  no  use  to  them  on  the 
question  of  the  substitute.     If  spiritual  baptism 


100  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

is  here  referred  to,  i.  e.  spiritual  renovation, 
(which  I  do  not  admit)  the  text,  if  it  prove  any- 
thing with  respect  to  a  substitute,  will  prove  that 
spiritual  renovation  is  the  substitute  of  spiritual 
renovation !  What  the  text,  however,  actually 
proves,  as  every  plain  reader  can  see,  is,  that 
Christian  circumcision,  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands  J  i.  e.  spiritual  renovation,  is  an 
essential  pre-requisite  to  Christian  baptism,  which 
is  immersion.  This  is  precisely  what  the  text 
proves.  It  meets  at  once  both  the  errors  of  Pedo- 
baptists  on  the  subject  of  baptism.* 

*  Lest  I  should  be  thought  not  to  have  given  the  Pedo- 
baptist  argument  all  the  advantage  of  a  fair  statement,  I 
will  make  an  extract  from  another  late  writer,  Rev.  Dr. 
Peters.  After  quoting  Rom.  iv.  11,  he  adds,  "  There  are 
numerous  other  passages  (as  if  the  one  he  had  quoted  had 
anything  to  do  Avith  the  subject)  which  show  that  baptism, 
under  the  Gospel,  takes  the  place  of  circumcision  under 
the  law.  '  Beware  of  the  concision,'  says  Paul,  i.  e.  be- 
ware of  those  persons  who  lay  great  stress  on  the  rite  of 
circumcision,  '  for  we,'  ^.  e.  we  who  have  been  baptized, 
'  are  the  circumcision,  which  worship  God  in  the  Spirit.'  " 
Let  the  reader  mark,  Paul  does  not  say,  ive  who  have  been 
baptized,  but  we  who  loorship  God  in  the  ' Spirit,  are  the  cir- 
cumcision. Dr.  Peters  might  as  well  have  quoted  any- 
other  text  as  this  to  prove  his  point. 

[It  is  worthy  of  remark,  also,  that  if  the  interpretation  of 
Dr.  Peters  were  correct,  the  text  would  be  still  a  fatal  one 
to  Infant  Baptism.  For  if  all  the  baptized  "  worshipped 
God  in  the  Spirit,"  then  ivfants  who  are  incapable  of  this, 
toe7^e  not  bcvptized.  Thus  "  error  is  fated  to  run  crooked," 
and  to  cross  itself  in  perpetual  contradictions. — j.  n.  b.] 

He  continues :  "  Again  he  says  in  Col.  ii.  11, 12,  '  Ye  are 
circumcised,'  &c.,  (quoting  the  entire  passage.)  The  meaning 
is,  in  other  words,  that  having  been  baptized  spiritually,  ye 
are  thereby  circumcised  spiritually  !^^  Who  denies  that  spi- 
ritual baptism  involves  spiritual  circumcision  ?  But  what 
proof  does  that  afford  that  outward  baptism  is  a  substitute 
for  outward  circumcision  ?  These  are  all  the  "  numerous 
other  passages"  he  quotes. 


NO   SUBSTITUTE  POSSIBLE.  101 

I  have  given  all  the  texts  I  ever  saw  or.  heard 
quoted,  to  prove  that  baptism  is  the  substitute  of 
circumcision.  But  this  is  not  all  that  tke  Bible 
gays  about  it.  On  the  contrary,  it  affords  the 
clearest  proof  that  baptism  cannot  be  the  substitute 
of  circumcision. 

In  the  first  place  we  may  repeat  the  observa- 
tibn  before  made,  that  the  covenant,  in  Gren.  xvii. 
in  its  very  terms,  absolutely  prohibits  the  obser- 
vance of  any  other  rite  than  circumcision,  as  its 
token,  while  it  remains.  This  rite  is  stated  to  be 
the  covenant  which  those  who  are  entitled  to  its 
promises  should  keep.  ^^This  is  my  covenant 
which  ye  shall  keep — every  man-child  among  you 
shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circumcise 
the  flesh  of  your  foreskin,  and  it  shall  be  a  token 
of  the  covenant.'^  The  same  word  everlasting, 
which,  as  our  brethren  say,  establishes  the  perpe- 
tuity of  the  covenant,  is  also  applied  to  this  rite. 
^'  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant."  According  to  the  very  terms 
of  the  covenant,  the  rite  of  circumcision  must  be 
coeval  with  the  covenant  itself  Both  are  called 
everlasting.  There  is  no  possibility  of  a  substitute 
under  the  covenant. 

2.  If,  as  our  brethren  affirm,  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  is  still  in  force — if  the  Gi-ospel  Church 
is  the  same  with  the  Jewish  Church — if  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  the  Jewish  Church  was  founded, 
are  established  in  the  Gospel  Church,  the  only 
difference  being  the  substitution  of  one  external 
rite  for  another,  which  holds  precisely  the  place 
of  the  first,  then  all  that  is  said  in  the  New  Tes- 
9 


102  COVENANT   OF  CIRCUMCISION. 

tameDt  against  the  observance  of  circumcision — 
all  the  reasonings  and  expostulations  of  Paul 
against  it,  apply  with  their  full  weight  against  in- 
fant baptism.  Our  brethren  have  taken  their 
position  directly  in  the  range  of  Paul's  artillery 
in  Galatians,  levelled  against  the  Judaizing  teach- 
ers, and  they  cannot  escape  its  effect.  The  rea- 
sonings of  Paul,  though  directed  against  the  rite 
of  circumcision,  were  still  more  directed  against 
the  principles  on  which  it  was  founded.  Can  it 
be  credited  that  he  would  reason  thus  against 
those  principles,  if  they  were  the  very  principles 
on  which  the  Church  of  Christ  was  founded  ? — 
and  against  that  rite,  if  Christianity  had  estab- 
lished a  rite  precisely  equivalent,  upon  the  same 
principles,  and  holding  precisely  the  same  place  ? 
3.  If  baptism  were  a  substitute  for  circumci- 
sion, something  clear  and  unambiguous  must  have 
been  said  about  it  in  the  New  Testament.  On 
this  point  T  have  a  right  to  speak  with  entire  con- 
fidence. The  circumstances  of  the  Church,  as 
they  are  presented  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  were 
such  as  to  render  silence  in  regard  to  such  a  fact 
as  this,  on  the  part  of  the  Apostles,  absolutely 
impossible.  There  was  a  schism  between  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  on  this  very  ques- 
tion— a  schism  which  it  would  have  been  perfectly 
easy  to  heal  by  just  insisting  that  baptism  takes 
the  place  of  circumcision,  while  the  covenant  was 
still  in  force,  with  such  "  enlargement  of  privi- 
lege,'' as  might  be  expected  in  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation. If  this  were  so,  Paul  could  not  have 
failed  to  mention  it  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 


Paul's  reasoning  conclusive.       103 

tians.  Not  a  word  here  about  a  substitute,  but 
everything  making  against  such  a  supposition. 
If  it  were  so,  it  could  not  have  failed  of  a  distinct 
mention  in  the  Apostolic  Council  assembled  at 
Jerusalem,  to  consider  this  question  of  the  appli- 
cation of  circumcision  to  the  Grentiles.  (Acts  xv.) 
Indeed,  if  this  were  so,  how  could  there  have 
been  any  schism  ?  How  could  such  a  question 
ever  have  been  mooted  ?  Did  not  the  Apostles 
know  all  about  it  ?  Did  they  not  instruct  the 
early  disciples,  both  Jews  and  Grentiles,  in  all  that 
pertained  to  Christianity  ?  If  baptism  held  pre- 
cisely the  place  of  circumcision,  as  the  "  seal"  of 
the  covenant,  the  covenant  itself  remaining  in  full 
force,  who  could  have  imagined  that  those  who 
had  been  baptized  must  also  be  circumcised  ? 
Who  would  have  thought  of  two  "  seals''  at  the 
same  time  of  the  same  covenant  ? 

If,  however,  in  some  unaccountable  manner,  a 
general  ignorance  prevailed  in  the  Church  in 
regard  to  this  simple  ABC  truth  of  the  gos- 
pel, (as  it  is  esteemed  by  our  brethren,)  how 
could  the  Apostles  have  failed  in  that  Council  to 
have  given  them  the  instruction  they  needed? 
How  could  James,  when  he  gave  his  opinion, 
"  Wherefore  my  sentence  is,  that  we  trouble  not 
them  which  from  among  the  Gentiles  have  turned 
to  God,"  have  failed  to  give  this  plain  reason, 
that  since  baptism  is  now  the  appointed  seal  of 
the  covenant  instead  of  circumcision,  to  impose 
circumcision  upon  them  would  be  inconsistent  and 
absurd?  Would  not  Dr.  White  or  Dr.  Peters 
have  said  something  of  this  kind  if  they  had  stood 


104  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

one  in  the  place  of  James,  and  the  other  in  the 
place  of  Peter  ?  I  affirm,  then,  and  I  am  certain 
that  I  have  the  common  sense  of  every  reader 
with  me,  that  if  this  position  of  our  brethren  were 
correct,  there  could  have  been  no  schism  or  dis- 
sension in  the  Church  similar  to  that  brought  to 
view  in  the  15th  of  Acts  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians ',  or  if,  by  any  unaccountable  ignorance, 
such  a  schism  had  arisen,  in  attempting  to  heal 
it  this  thing  must  have  been  distinctly  stated. 
And  since  not  the  least  intimation  is  given  of  any 
such  thing,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that 
nothing  of  the  kind  is  true. 

4.  There  is  one  passage  which  puts  an  absolute 
and  decisive  negative  upon  this  question.  It  is 
in  Acts  xxi.  20,  21,  25,  where  James  and  the 
Elders  at  Jerusalem  say  to  Paul,  "  Thou  seest, 
brother,  how  many  thousands  of  Jews  there  are 
which  believe,  and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the 
law.  And  they  are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou 
teachest  all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  Gen- 
tiles to  forsake  Moses,  saying  that  they  ought  not 
to  circumcise  their  children,  neither  to  walk  after 
the  customs.  As  touching  the  Gentiles  which 
believe,  we  have  written  and  concluded  that  they 
observe  NO  such  thing,  save  only  that  they  keep 
themselves  from  things  offered  to  idols,  and  from 
blood,  and  from  strangled,  and  from  fornication.'* 
But,  I  ask,  did  they  not  teach  the  Gentiles  to 
observe  baptism,  which,  according  to  our  brethren, 
is  substantially  the  same  thing  with  circum- 
cision, a  token  and  seal  of  the  same  covenant,  its 
appointed  substitute,  to  be  applied  to  the  same 


RECAPITULATION  AND  RESULT.     105 

description  of  persons,  founded  on  the  same  law, 
and  occupying  the  same  place  in  the  Divine  eco- 
nomy ?  And  could  they  do  that,  and  then  say 
that  they  had  commanded  the  Gentiles  that  thej 
observe  no  such  thing  as  circumcision?* 


RECAPITULATION   AND   RESULT. 

I  HERE  close  my  examination  of  the  Covenant 
of  Circumcision.  I  have  shown  from  its  nature 
that  it  cannot  be  the  Covenant  of  Grace ;  that  it 
is  legal  in  its  form  and  in  its  spirit,  a  part  of  the 
Mosaic  economy,  and  identical  with  the  Old  Cove- 
nant. 1  have  shown  that  its  blessings  are  mainly 
national  and  external,  and  in  no  sense  spiritual 
and  new-covenant  blessings.  I  have  shown  that 
its  rite  is  a  positive  ordinance,  to  be  kept  as  it  is 
commanded,  or  not  at  all.  I  have  shown  the 
uses  of  the  rite  of  circumcision,  from  none  of 
which  baptism  can  be  inferred  ;  and  lastly,  I  have 
shown  that  the  covenant  has  expired,  and  that  its 
rite  is  abolished  without  any  substitute.  We 
come  then  inevitably  to  the  conclusion  arrived  at 


*  "  When  the  ancient  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  which 
'God  made  with  his  people  for  an  everlasting  covenant  was 
abolished,  another  ordinance  was  instituted  m  the  same 
church, under  the  same  covenant,  of  precisely  the  same  import, 
and  fur  the  same  purpose.'''' — Dr.  Peters.  The  italics  are 
his. 

9* 


106  COVENANT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

before  by  many  of  the  most  eminent  biblical 
scholars  of  the  age,  that  ^'  the  Ahrahamic  Cove- 
nant furnishes  no  ground  for  Infant  Baptism."^ 

*  Prof.  Stuart's  Manuscript  Lectures  on  Gal.  iii.,  cited  in 
Jewett  on  Baptism. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice,  that  while  such  divines  as 
Dr.  Emmons,  Dr.  Bushnell,  and  Dr.  Halley  of  London, 
agree  with  Prof  Stuart  that  "  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
furnishes  no  ground  for  infant  baptism,"  Dr.  Chalmers 
declares  it  as  his  opinion  that  "  key'e  lies  the  main  strength 
of  the  argument  Jar  infant  baptism  " — Lectures  on  Romans 
xiv.  Had  this  excellent  man,  whose  sudden  death  all 
deplore,  as  they  admire  the  rich  productions  of  his  sancti- 
fied genius,  allowed  his  mind  to  descend  from  vague  but 
specious  generalizations  to  a  rigid  examination  of  facts,  on 
this  subject  and  on  that  of  Church  Establishments,  there  is 
little  reason  to  doubt  that  his  candor  would  in  both  cases 
have  yielded  its  wilhng  confession  of  involuntary  error. 
He  would  have  then  seen  that  "  the  stamp  of  presumptuous 
innovation"  is  impressed,  not  upon  the  course  of  those  who 
adhere  to  the  commanded  baptism  of  believers,  but  upon 
those  who  presume  to  apply  it  without  the  slightest  scrip- 
tural authority  to  any  other  class  of  persons  ;  and  he  would 
have  gladly  added  one  or  two  fresh  flowers  to  that  wreath 
of  honor,  which,  at  the  close  of  the  very  Lecture  above 
named,  he  has  generously  twined  around  the  brows  of  the 
Baptists  of  England. — J.V.  b. 


PART    11. 
INFANT    BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT    FOR    INFANT 
BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 

From  the  manner  in  which  most  Pedobaptist 
writers  reason  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  it 
is  clear  that  they  have  little  confidence  in  the 
New  Testament  argument,  considered  by  itself,  in 
its  favor.  It  is  not  probable  that  they  would 
claim  any  argument  for  it  in  the  New  Testament, 
if  it  were  not  for  the  views  maintained  respecting 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  which  have  been 
refuted  in  the  preceding  pages;  and  the  supposed 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  rite  in  the  Church, 
in  the  age  immediately  succeeding  the  Apostolic. 
It  is  freely  conceded  by  all  writers,  so  far  as  I 
know,  that  there  is  no  command  for  it  in  the  New 
Testament.  Says  Dr.  Woods,  "  It  is  plain  that 
there  is  no  express  precept  respecting  infant  bap- 
tism in  our  sacred  writings.''  Says  Prof.  Stuart, 
"  Commands,  or  plain  and  certain  examples  rela- 


108  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

tive  to  it,  I  do  not  find."  Many  other  writers 
confess  this  with  equal  ingenuousness.  They 
assume  that  the  principle  of  the  thing  is  settled 
by  the  Abrahamic  Covenant,  and  then  claim  that 
all  that  ought  to  be  expected  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  that  the  subject  obscurely  appear  there 
in  an  allusive  or  incidental  way. 

On  this  scheme  several  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  are  quoted,  which,  it  is  supposed,  har- 
monize with  this  view  of  the  Covenant  of  Circum- 
cision, and  so  are  to  be  relied  on  as  collateral 
proofs.  But  if  this  view  of  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision is  radically  erroneous,  as  I  have  shown, 
all  support  from  these  passages  must  fail.  It  is 
only  from  this  point  of  view  that  there  is  any 
plausibility  in  the  argument  drawn  from  these 
passages.  Indeed,  viewing  them  from  the  Pedo- 
baptist  stand-point,  there  is  so  little  plausibility 
in  tuis  application  of  these  passages,  that,  com- 
paring one  writer  with  another,  we  find  all  argu- 
ment from  them  given  up.  No  one  writer 
surrenders  them  all ;  but  one  writer  surrenders  a 
part,  another  writer  another  part,  and  so  among 
the  different  writers  they  are  all  surrendered,  and 
the  argument  for  infant  baptism  in  any  of  them 
is  refuted. 

And  with  good  reason.  What  theologian  or 
expositor  of  the  Scriptures,  if  he  had  not  a  case 
to  make  out,  would  adduce  the  fact  that  Christ 
encouraged  infants  to  be  brought  to  him  for  his 
blessing,  as  an  argument  for  applying  to  them  a 
rite  which,  in  the  very  nature  of  it,  must  depend 
upon  a  positive  command  ?     Who  again  would 


DAY  OP  PENTECOST,   HOUSEHOLDS.        109 

bring  the  passage  in  Acts  ii.  39,  "For  the  pro- 
mise is  unto  you  and  to  your  children/'  when  it 
is  so  clear  from  the  connection  that  the  Apostle  is 
speaking  of  no  promise  but  that  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?  when  it  is  so  clear,  too,  that  no  uncon- 
scious infants  were  baptized  on  that  occasion,  but 
those  only  who  "  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized/'  Dr.  Barnes  expresses  his  decided  opin- 
ion that  this  passage  is  wholly  misapplied  when 
brought  in  support  of  infant  baptism. 

As  little  to  the  purpose  is  the  case  of  the  three 
households  whose  baptism  is  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament — those  of  Lydia  and  the  jailer, 
at  Philippi,  and  Stephanas,  at  Corinth.  Before 
any  argument  for  infant  baptism  can  be  legiti- 
mately founded  on  these  cases,  it  is  necessary  to 
show  that  there  were  persons  in  those  households 
of  an  age  too  tender  to  admit  of  their  exercising 
faith,  which  is  so  plainly  impossible  that  no  one 
has  ever  attempted  it.  Besides,  the  examples 
themselves  furnish  a  refutation  of  any  argument 
drawn  from  them  in  support  of  infant  baptism. 
That  the  household  of  Stephanas  were  all  believ- 
ers, is  clear  from  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.  That  the  same 
was  t»ue  of  the  household  of  the  jailer,  is  plainer 
from  the  history,  as  Doddridge  and  Bloomfield 
admit.  That  Lydia  was  the  mother  of  a  young 
family  is  incredible,  when  we  bear  in  mind  that 
she  was  three  hundred  miles  from  home,  beyond 
sea,  engaged  in  mercantile  pursuits.  And  that 
her  household  were  believers  immediately  after 
their  baptism,  seems  evident  from  Acts  xvi.  40 ;  a 
pretty  clear  proof  that  they  were  before. 


110  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

An  argument  for  infant  baptism  is  frequently 
drawn  from  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  Dr.  Wall  makes 
much  of  it.  But  it  would  seem  that  its  weak- 
ness must  be  apparent  to  every  reader  of  it. 
Every  one  can  see  that  if  it  establishes  the  right 
of  children  to  baptism  on  the  faith  of  one  be- 
lieving parent,  it  equally  establishes  the  right  to 
baptism  of  an  unbelieving  husband  or  wife,  on 
the  faith  of  the  believing  husband  or  wife.  "For 
the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife, 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  hus- 
band ;  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are 
they  holy,"  or  sanctified — the  word  in  the  original 
being  of  precisely  the  same  import  with  that  which 
is  rendered  "  sanctified"  in  relation  to  the  husband 
and  wife.  Prof.  Stuart  shows  this,  and  admits 
that  it  affords  no  argument  for  infant  baptism.  Dr. 
Barnes  expresses  himself  decidedly  and  strongly 
against  arguing  for  infant  baptism  from  this 
passage.  See  his  note  on  the  passage,  in  his 
Com.  on  1  Cor.  Indeed  it  would  seem  that  the 
remark  of  Dr.  Barnes  would  suggest  itself  to  every 
reader  of  the  passage :  "  There  is  not  one  word 
about  baptism  here ;  not  one  allusion  to  it ;  nor 
does  the  argument  in  the  remotest  degree  bear 
upon  it.  The  question  was  not  whether  children 
should  be  baptized,  but  it  was  whether  there 
should  be  a  separation  between  man  and  wife, 
where  one  was  a  Christian  and  the  other  not." 

In  connection  with  these  passages,  the  remarks 
of  that  critical  and  standard  ecclesiastical  his- 
torian, Neander,  in  his  "  Planting  and  Training 
of  the  Church,"  are  worthy  of  careful  attention. 


REMARKS    OF   NEANDER.  Ill 

'^As  baptism  was  closely  united  with  a  cod- 
scious  entrance  on  Christian  communion,  faith 
and  baptism  were  always  connected  with  one 
another;  and  thus  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  that  baptism  was  performed  only  in 
instances  where  both  could  meet  together,  and 
that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  unknown 
at  this  period  (viz.  the  Apostolic  age).  We 
cannot  infer  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  from 
the  baptism  of  whole  families,  for  the  passage  in 
1  Cor.  xvi.  15,  shows  the  fallacy  of  such  a  con- 
clusion, as  from  that  it  appears  that  the  whole 
family  of  Stephanas,  who  were  baptized  by  Paul, 
consisted  of  adults.  That  not  till  so  late  a  period 
as  (at  least  certainly  not  earlier  than)  Irena3us,  a 
trace  of  infant  baptism  appears,  and  that  it  first 
became  recognized  as  an  Apostolical  tradition  in 
the  course  of  the  third  century,  is  evidence  rather 
against  than  for  the  admission  of  its  Apostolical 
origin ;  especially  since  in  the  spirit  of  the  age 
when  Christianity  appeared,  there  were  many  ele- 
ments which  must  have  been  favourable  to  the 

introduction  of  infant  baptism And  if 

we  wish  to  ascertain  from  whom  such  an  institu- 
tion was  originated,  we  should  say,  certainly  not 
immediately  from  Christ  himself.  Was  it  from 
the  Primitive  Church  in  Palestine,  from  an  in- 
junction given  by  the  earlier  Apostles  ?  Bu 
among  the  Jewish  Christians,  circumcision  was 
■held  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  hence  they 
had  so  much  less  occasion  to  make  use  of  another 
dedication  for  their  children.  Could  it  then  have 
been  Paul,  who   fii'st  among  Gentile  Christians 


112  NEW  TESTAMENT  ARGUMENT. 

introduced  this  alteration  in  the  use  of  baptism  ? 
He  who  says  of  himself  that  Christ  sent  him  not 
to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  Gospel  j  he  who 
always  kept  his  eye  fixed  on  one  thing,  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  and  so  carefully  avoided  everything 
which  could  give  a  handle  or  support  to  the  notion 
of  a  justification  by  outward  things,  how  could  he 
have  set  up  infant  baptism  against  the  circum- 
cision that  continued  to  be  practised  by  the 
Jewish  Christians?  In  this  case,  the  dispute 
carried  on  with  the  Judaizing  party,  on  the  ne- 
cessity of  circumcision,  would  easily  have  given 
an  opportunity  of  introducing  this  substitute  into 
the  controversy,  if  it  had  really  existed.  The 
evidence  arising  from  silence  on  this  topic  has 
there/ore  the  greater  weight.^' 

In  connection  with  the  foregoing  remarks,  the 
following,  from  the  same  author,  quoted  from  one 
of  his  lectures  by  Rev.  Dr.  Sears,  in  the  Christian 
Review,  Vol.  3,  are  worthy  of  consideration. 

'^  Can  infant  baptism  he  proved  to  he  Apos- 
tolical ?'' 

"  Catholics  resort  to  tradition  to  prove  it ;  but 
Protestants  have  rejected  the  authority  of  tra- 
dition. Hence  the  Reformers,  in  1521,  were 
brought  into  difiiculty  in  regard  to  it.  As  they 
loere  accustomed  to  the  practice,  they  made  an 
attempt  to  prove  it  from  Scripture;  and  in  the 
]6th,  17th,  and  partly  in  the  18th  centuries, 
false  arguments  were  employed  in  support  of  it, 
till,  at  length.  Rationalism  led  to  a  more  candid 
examination  of  the  subject.  The  arguments  were 
the  following : 


OPINION   OF   NEANDER.  113 

^^1.  WJioIe  families  icere  haptized  in  the 
Primitive  Church.  But  there  may  have  been 
no  infants  in  those  families ;  children  may  have 
reached  the  age  of  maturity. 

"  2.  Christ  commanded,  imthout  limitation,  to 
baptize  all.  The  command  might  indeed  be  so 
understood^  were  it  not  added  ^adri-tivnv^  SiSasxsiv, 
mahe  disciples,  teach,  which  cannot  apply  to 
infants. 

"3.  Christ  said,  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me.  But  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  a 
conscious  reception  of  the  sign  of  regeneration. 

^^  4.  Infant  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of 
circumcision.  But  there  is  a  difference  between 
the  two  dispensations.  In  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion, the  theocracy  was  designed  for  a  particular 
nation,  and  was  hereditary.  An  external  sign 
could,  therefore,  be  applied  to  those  who  were 
members  of  the  theocracy  hy  birth.  But  in  the 
Christian  dispensation,  it  is  wholly  different ;  the 
participation  must  be  internal,  a  free,  conscious 
reception,  a  regeneration,  of  which  baptism  is  the 
sign.  Hence  the  difference  in  the  two  dispensa- 
tions shows  of  itself,  that  baptism  presupposes  an 
internal  change." 


10 


114  NEW   TESTAMENT  ARGUMENT. 


CHAPTEE  n. 

INFANT  BAPTISM,   IF    NOT    COMMANDED   IN   THE 
WORD   OF   GOD,   IS   FORBIDDEN. 

I  HAVE  already  shown  that  most  Pedobaptist 
writers  concede  that  the  Bible  contains  no  com- 
mand expressly  enjoining  infant  baptism.  Some 
go  so  far  as  to  claim  that  the  demand  for  such  an 
express  requirement  is  unreasonable.* 

But  is  this  demand  unreasonable?  On  the 
contrary,  is  it  not  the  ground  which  every  Chris- 
tian should  take,  and  strenuously  insist  upon,  to 
admit  no  religious  rite,  without  a  peremptory 
challenge  for  its  authority ;  and  to  admit  none, 
without  express  Divine  command,  or  clear  Apos- 
tolical precedent,  whatever  other  claims  it  may 
put  forth  ?  If  the  history  of  the  Church  teaches 
any  lesson,  this  is  written  as  with  a  sunbeam. 

If  infant  baptism  be  a  duty,  it  is  a  positive 
duty.  All  must  admit  that  it  is  not  a  moral 
duty.  It  does  not  "arise  out  of  the  nature  of 
the  case,  prior  to  external  command,"  the  terms 
in  which  Bishop  Butler  defines  moral  duties. 
But  if  not  a  moral  duty,  it  is  a  positive  duty. 
Will  any  one  join  issue  with  Bishop  Butler  in 
the  following  proposition :  "  Positive  duties  do 
not  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  from 
external  command  ;  NOR  WOULD  THEY  BE  DUTIES 
AT    ALL,    WERE    IT    NOT    FOR    SUCH    COM»IAND, 

*  Dr.  Peters  on  Baptism,  p.  160. 


INFANT  BAPTISM  FORBIDDEN.  115 

RECEIVED    FROM    HiM   WHOSE    CREATURES    AND 

SUBJECTS  WE  ARE."*  This  is  our  position  in 
relation  to  infant  baptism;  it  cannot  be  a  duty 
without  express  command  or  clear  inspired  pre- 
cedent. Of  those  who  would  impose  it  upon  us, 
we  demand  that  express  authority,  and  whoever 
claims  that  we  are  unreasonable  in  that  demand, 
must  join  issue  with  Bishop  Butler  in  the  decla- 
ration above. 

How  earnestly  Baxter  pleads  for  the  same 
principle,  in  the  following  words  :  "  Who  knows 
what  will  please  God  but  himself?  And  has  he 
not  told  us  what  he  expects  of  us  ?  Can  that  be 
obedience  which  has  no  command  for  it  ?  Is  not 
this  to  supererogate,  and  to  be  righteous  over- 
much ?  Is  not  this  to  accuse  God's  ordinances 
of  insufficiency,  as  well  as  his  word ;  as  if  they 
were  not  sufficient  to  please  him,  or  help  our  own 
graces  ?  0  the  pride  of  man's  heart,  that  instead 
of  being  a  law-obeyer,  will  be  a  law-maker  I" 

But  I  do  not  base  this  principle  on  the  authority 
of  Butler,  or  Baxter,  or  a  score  of  others  whom  I 
might  quote,  who  state  it  as  distinctly  and  strongly 
as  they  have.  In  Col.  ii.  20-22,  the  principle  is 
clearly  laid  down,  thai  all  religious  rites  not  ex- 
pressly required  J  are  forhiddcn.  ^'Wherefore,  if 
ye  be  dead  with  Christ  from  the  rudiments  of 
the  world,  why,  as  though  living  in  it,  are  ye 
subject  to  ordinances,  after  the  commandments 
and  doctrines  of  men  V  This  principle  is  a 
broad  one,  covering  all  religious  rites,  infant  bap- 

*  Analogy,  Part  2,  Chap.  I. 


116  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

tism  with  the  rest.  Christians  are  here  expressly 
required  not  to  be  subject  to  ordinances,  after 
the  commandments  and  doctrines  of  men.  Infant 
baptism  is  maintained  as  an  ordinance  binding  on 
the  Church.  If  so,  it  must  have  had  an  ordainer. 
But  it  is  admitted  that  Grod  has  not  commanded 
it,  and  that  there  is  no  clear  Apostolical  precedent 
for  it.  But  if  God  has  not  commanded  it,  it  is  a 
commandment  of  men,  and  we  are  forbidden  to  be 
subject  to  any  such  ordinances.  It  is  forbidden 
in  the  next  verse  as  ivill  icor&hip ;  i.  e.  those  who 
practice  religious  rites  not  commanded  of  God, 
worship  God  according  to  their  own  will,  and  not 
according  to  his  will. 

We  are  sometimes  asked  for  an  express  prohi- 
bition of  infant  baptism.  As  well  might  the 
Pharisees  have  asked  where  in  the  Old  Testament 
were  their  traditions  expressly  forbidden.  The 
Bible  must  have  been  a  large  book  to  have  pro- 
hibited in  terms  every  false  notion  the  human 
mind  might  conceive,  down  to  the  end  of  time ; 
and  the  Catholic  has  as  good  a  right  to  demand  a 
prohibition  of  holy  water,  and  the  sign  of  the 
crosSj  or  of  auricular  confession,  as  the  Protestant 
Pedobaptist  has,  to  demand  a  prohibition  of  infant 
baptism.  But  J3y  this  one  principle  not  only  in- 
fant baptism,  but  infant  communion,  invocation 
of  saints,  prayers  for  the  dead,  the  use  of  holy 
water,  the  sign  of  the  cross  and  anointing  with 
oil  in  baptism,  auricular  confession,  penances  and 
pilgrimages — in  short,  all  religious  rites  not  com- 
manded— are  forbidden.  Dr.  Sherlock,  answering 
such  a  claim  made  by  Catholics  in  his  day,  says, 


DIRECT   PROHIBITION.  117 

'*  They  make  the  demand  with  just  as  much  rea- 
son as  if  one  should  tell  me  that  by  the  laws  of 
England,  every  man  is  bound  to  marry  at  twenty 
years  old  ;  and  when  I  desire  him  to  show  me  the 
law  which  makes  this  necessary,  he  should  answer, 
though  he  cannot  show  me  such  a  law,  yet  it  may 
be  necessary,  unless  I  can  show  him  a  law  which 
expressly  declares  it  is  not  necessary.  Whereas 
nothing  is  necessary  but  what  the  law  makes  so ; 
and  if  the  law  has  not  made  it  necessary,  there  is 
no  need  of  any  law  to  declare  that  it  is  not  ne- 
cessary.'' 


CHAPTER  III. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  DIRECTLY  OPPOSED  TO  THE 
BAPTISM  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  THE  COM- 
MISSION. 

Probably  most  Protestants  will  admit  that 
the  principle  enunciated  in  the  extract  from  Dr. 
Sherlock,  is  a  correct  one,  and  the  only  one  that 
will  suffice  to  guard  the  church  against  the  intro- 
duction of  unauthorized  rites.  Indeed,  it  is  but 
another  form  of  stating  the  principle  laid  down  in 
Col.  ii.  20,  22.  According  to  it,  the  simple  silence 
of  the  scriptures  in  relation  to  any  religious  rite 
,is  a  condemnation  of  it,  from  which  there  is  no 
appeal.  But  the  case  against  infant  baptism  is 
stronger  than  this.  Not  merely  is  the  New  Tes- 
tament silent  in  regard  to  it ;  not  merely  is  it 
10* 


118  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

condemned  by  the  general  principle  already  stated ; 
it  is  contrary  to  the  instructions  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  relation  to  baptism.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  the  declared  principles  of  the  New  Testament 
ordinance,  and  is  subversive  of  them. 

It  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  baptisms  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  were  administered  in 
agreement  with  the  New  Testament  Law  of  bap- 
tism. And  if  we  examine  historically  the  New 
Testament  accounts  of  that  ordinance,  we  shall 
find  that  in  every  case  recorded,  baptism  was  the 
volimtarili/  assumed  badge  of  disciplesliip,  imply- 
ing the  individual  profession  of  repentance  and 
faith.  Thus  John's  baptism  was  the  baptism  of 
repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  all  who 
were  baptized  by  him  confessed  their  sins.  Mark 
i.  4,  5.  Peter's  direction  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
was,  '^  Repent  and  be  baptized ;"  and  "  they  that 
gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized."  Acts  ii. 
38,  41.  \Yhen  the  Samaritans  believed,  they 
were  baptized,  both  men  and  v:omen.  Acts  viii. 
12.  The  Eunuch  confessed  his  faith  before  he 
was  baptized.  Ver.  36-38.  The  Gentiles  at 
Csesarea  received  the  Holy  Ghost  before  they, 
were  baptized.  Acts  x.  The  Corinthians  heard, 
believed,  and  were  baptized.  Acts  xviii.  8.  And 
that  the  households  at  Philippi  are  no  exceptions 
to  this  general  rule,  has  already  been  shown. 

Furthermore,  infant  baptism  stands  opposed  to 
the  very  terms  of  the  Law  of  Christian  baptism. 
This  is  contained  in  the  last  Commission,  as  given 
by  Matthew — "  Go  ye,  disciple  (jxadritsv^ati)  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  into,  (stj)  the  name  of  the 


THE   COMMISSION.  119 

Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;" 
and  by  Mark — "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned. '^ 

The  language  of  this  Commission  is  so  plain, 
that  it  would  seem  that  the  unsophisticated  sense 
of  every  reader  of  it  must  at  once  perceive,  that, 
at  the  least,  it  is  silent  in  regard  to  infant  baptism. 
And  yet  learned  men,  incredible  as  it  may  appear, 
adduce  this  commission  as  a  prime  proof  that  infant 
baptism  is  authorized  in  the  New  Testament ! 

That  I  may  not  by  any  inadventure  misrepre- 
sent Pedobaptist  opinion  on  this  point,  I  shall 
quote  a  passage  from  the  author  I  referred  to  and 
quoted  from  in  Part  I. — Dr.  White,  of  the  New 
York  Theological  Seminary. 

"  Let  us  examine  a  little  the  allegation  that 
there  is  no  command  in  the  New  Testament  to 
baptize  children  the  seed  of  believers.  Is  this 
certainly  so  ?  What  signifies  the  Saviour's  de- 
parting injunction,  "  Go  ye  and  disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  T'  Of  whom  are  all  nations  con- 
stituted ?  Of  men,  or  women,  or  children  exclu- 
sively ?  Or  are  they  constituted  of  all  of  them 
together  ?  And  by  what  right  is  any  class  of  those 
who  constitute  the  nations  excepted  ?  When  this 
command  of  the  Saviour  has  been  fully  obeyed, 
and  all  the  nations  are  baptized,  will  the  children 
included  in  them  be  baptized,  or  will  they  not  T' 
Yes :  but  they  will  all  first  have  been  taught  the 
gospel ;  and  what  then  becomes  of  infant  baptism  ? 

Dr.  White,  in  his  haste  to  propound  this  series 


120  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

of  questions,  which  he  seems  to  have  regarded  as 
conclusive  argument,  must  not  only  have  forgotten 
the  very  first  and  fundamental  duty  of  the  Com- 
mission, but  must  have  forgotten  to  read  it  from 
his  Greek  Testament.  His  questions  are  clearly 
based  upon  the  supposition  that  the  pronoun  them 
has  for  its  antecedent  all  nations — "■  disciple 
all  nations,  baptizing  them"  (the  nations).  Had 
he  taken  the  precaution  to  read  the  passage  in  the 
original,  he  would  have  seen  that  them  (o.vtovi) 
being  masculine,  cannot  agree  with  all  nations, 
(jiavta  fa  sBvri)  which  is  neuter,  but  must  agree 
with  ^s^a.Sr^t£v^m■ovi — those  icho  are  discipled,  un- 
derstood. The  clear  import  of  the  expression  in 
the  original  is,  "  Disciple  all  nations,  baptizing 
the  disciples;"  and  that  I  suppose  every  plain 
reader  of  the  English  Testament  understands  the 
import  of  our  version  of  it  to  be.  So  it  matters 
not  whether  unconscious  infants  are  a  part  of  all 
nations,  or  not ;  they  are  not  commanded  to  be 
baptized  unless  they  are  first  discipled.  The 
commission  makes  this  as  plain  as  language  can 
make  it. 

Dr.  White  however  admits  in  the  next  para- 
graph, that  faith  is  required  in  an  adult  before  he 
can  be  baptized,  and  also  in  a  parent  before  he 
has  a  right  to  present  his  children  for  baptism. 
But  I  ask,  what  intimation  is  there  in  this  com- 
mission about  children  ?  "What  permission  even 
is  there  here,  to  baptize  them,  whether  parents 
have  faith  or  not  ?  "  Disciple  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing those  who  are  DISCIPLED.^^  "  He  that  be- 
LIEVETH  and  is  baptized."     Disciples — belie  vers. 


JEWISH  PROSELYTE  BAPTISM.  121 

only,  are  named  as  subjects  of  baptism ;  not  a 
word,  or  intimation  is  given  respecting  their  seed. 
Was  a  greater  outrage  upon  language  ever  com- 
mitted than  that  of  inUting  infants  into  this  plain 
and  positive  law  of  the  King  of  Zion  ?  Does  the 
reader  inquire,  by  what  logical  process  infants  are 
put  into  a  law  which  specifies  only  disciples  or 
believers  ?  for  it  must  be  supposed  that  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Systematic  Theology  in  the  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary  has  some  reason  for  such  a  posi- 
tion. I  answer,  the  position  is  based  on  the 
assumption  that  the  Commission  is  only  an  ap- 
pendage of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  instead 
of  being  the  fundamental  law  of  a  new  dis- 
pensation, opposed  both  in  form  and  in  spirit  to 
that  of  which  the  covenant  of  cireumcision  formed 
an  essential  part.  But  how  terrible  a  thing  it  is, 
however  unconsciously,  thus  to  tamper  with  the 
Word  of  God ! 

It  is  frequently  alleged  that  the  Jews,  before 
the  Christian  era,  were  accustoned  to  baptize  pro- 
selytes and  their  children  with  them;  and  that 
the  Apostles,  familiar  with  this  usage,  would  un- 
derstand the  Saviour's  commission  to  direct  the 
same  thing.  But  I  ask,  what  room  is  there  for 
mere  conjecture  as  to  how  the  Apostles  would 
understand  this  law  ?  Have  they  not  told  us  in 
their  recorded  practice  how  they  understood  it  ? 
Their  practice,  as  I  have  shown,  was  solely  be- 
lievers' baptism;  not  a  solitary  instance  of  their 
baptizing  infants  is  recorded.  After  they  have 
themselves  shown  us  how  they  understood  it,  has 
any  body  a  right  to  conjecture  how  they  might 


122  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

have  understood  it  ?  Besides  it  has  been  shown  by 
Dr.  Sears,  Prof.  Stuart,  and  many  of  the  ablest 
foreign  critics,  that  the  Jews  never  practised  pro- 
selyte baptism,  until  at  least  thirty  or  forty  years 
after  the  date  of  this  commission. 

There  is  no  ambiguity  about  this  commission, 
and  no  room  to  doubt  that  by  its  very  terms  in- 
fants are  excluded  from  baptism.  Disciples^  as 
expressed  by  one  Evangelist,  believers,  as  expressed 
by  another,  are  the  only  subjects  of  baptism,  as 
stated  in  the  law  of  Christ.  The  New  Testa- 
ment import  of  the  terms  disciple  and  believer  is, 
among  all  evangelical  Christians,  settled.  The 
word  disciple  does  not  imply  less  than  one  who  is 
instructed,  but  more.  A  person,  incapable  of 
being  instructed,  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
be  a  disciple.  Says  Dr.  Sears,  (Chr.  Rev.  Vol.  iii. 
p.  205,)  ^'  How  does  any  one  become  a  disciple, 
except  by  being  taught  ?  How  does  the  Grreek 
word,  which  signified  to  teach,  come  to  signify 
to  make  a  disciple,  except  by  including  the  idea 
of  instruction  ?  Will  it  be  pretended  that  the 
word  is  used,  either  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in 
classic  writers,  v:)here  the  idea  of  instruction  is  not 
involved  ?  It  cannot  be  applied  to  unconscious 
babes,  who  are  incapable  of  receiving  instruction." 
It  is  sometimes  said,  that  the  exigencies  of  this 
law  are  fulfilled  in  the  baptism  of  the  children  of 
believers,  because  this  act  connects  them  with  the 
church,  and  so  bringing  them  under  her  hallowed 
influence  puts  them  in  a  probable  way  of  becoming 
disciples  or  believers.  If  the  law  read,  "  Put  all 
nations  in  a  probable  way  of  becoming  disciples, 


MEANING  OF  DISCIPLE.  123 

baptizing  them,"  this  would  fulfill  its  exigencies. 
The  law  is,  "  baptize  disciples — believers,''  not 
those  who,  with  whatever  degree  of  probability, 
may  become  disciples. 

So  this  point  was  understood  in  the  early  church, 
as  is  clear  from  the  institution  of  the  order  of 
catechumens.  This  order,  formed  for  the  pur- 
poses of  elementary  Christian  instruction,  em- 
braced all  candidates  for  baptism,  those  born  of 
Christian  parents  as  well  as  heathens,  and  from 
the  time  of  its  complete  institution,  through  the 
first  four  centuries,  this  was  the  only  regular  mode 
of  approach  to  baptism.*  When  infant  baptism 
became  common,  being  a  catechumen  became  a 
mere  form.  Still  the  fact  that  the  shell  was  re- 
tained long  after  the  practice  of  infant  baptism 
had  eaten  out  the  substance  of  it, — infants  be- 
ing called  catechumens  for  a  certain  period  of 
time  before  baptism — is  a  proof  that  there  was 
originally  a  substance  to  it ;  and  that  substance 
was  the  fact  that  Christ's  law,  requiring  disciple- 
ship  as  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  baptism, 
could  not  be  fulfilled  with  anything  less  than  a 
regular  course  of  Christian  instruction  and  dis- 
cipline. 

Furthermore,  the  formula  of  baptism  is  a  proof 
that  infant  baptism  is  forbidden  by  this  commis- 
sion. "  Baptizing  them  into  (ns)  the  name  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.''  This 
must  imply  one  of  two  things ;  either  Christian 
baptism  does  actually  produce  a  spiritual  and  vital 

.  ♦  See  Christian  Review,  Vol.  xiii.  p.  214,  et  seq.] 


124:  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

union  with  the  sacred  Three,  or  it  is  an  outward 
expression  and  profession  of  such  a  union,  which 
had  a  supposed  previous  existence,  the  result  of  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  the  first  of  these 
alternatives  expresses  the  truth,  that  is,  if  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  regeneration  is  scriptural,  infant 
baptism  is  still  inconsistent  with  this  commission, 
for  the  baptized  must  be  first  tauglii.  But  if 
that  doctrine  is  unscriptural,  and  soul  destructive, 
as  all  evangelical  Christians  hold,  infant  baptism 
is  necessarily  forbidden.  For,  how  can  an  uncon- 
scious infant  i^rofess  a  spiritual  union  with  God  ? 
Says  Dr.  Robinson,  "  To  he  baptized  ft?  into  the 
name  of  any  one,  as  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  imports  a 
profession  of  faith  in  any  one,  and  sincere  obe- 
dience to  him.'^'^ 

Administering  baptism  to  unconscious  infants 
is  a  plain  suhversion  of  Christ's  law  of  baptism. 
The  law  which  commands  baptism  to  be  adminis- 
tered solely  to  believers,  at  the  same  time  com- 
mands believers  to  be  baptized.  Clearly  the  com- 
mand to  be  baptized  is  addressed  to  those,  who, 
according  to  the  law  of  baptism,  are  the  proper 
subjects  of  the  ordinance.  Now,  in  a  case  of  in- 
fant baptism,  I  ask,  which  of  the  three  parties 
concerned,  the  administrator,  the  parent,  or  the 
subject,  has  obeyed  the  law  of  baptism  ?  Not 
the  administrator ;  for  the  law  being  as  much  a 
command  to  the  subject  of  the  ordinance  to  be 
baptized,  as  to  the  administrator  to  baptize  him, 
cannot,  without  a  plain  contradiction,  authorize 

*  Robinson's  Lexicon,  Voc.  ^3artT'i^cd. 


LAW   OP  BAPTISM   SUBVERTED.  125 

him  to  baptize  a  person  who  is  not  capable 
of  intelligently  obeying  a  command.  It  cannot 
authorize  him  to  baptize  an  unconscious  subject. 
Not  the  parent;  for  the  relation  of  parent  and 
child  is  not  so  much  as  hinted  at  in  the  law.  Not 
the  infant ;  for  he  is  not  a  subject  of  any  com- 
mand. He  is  baptized  without  his  knowledge. 
Such  a  baptism  cannot,  in  any  sense,  be  Christian 
baptism,  for  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  Christian 
baptism.  And  it  is  a  subversion  of  it.  It  is 
placing  powerful  obstacles — not  indeed  physical 
ones,  but  those  which  are  far  more  potent — in 
the  way  of  that  child's  ever  obeying  that  law,  if 
he  shall  by  grace  be  inclined  to.  The  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism,  to  which  he  is  committed  in 
the  tender  period  of  infancy  by  the  rite  itself,  in 
which  also  he  is  trained,  forbids  his  own  voluntary 
submission  to  Christ's  imperative  law  to  believers, 
should  he  ever  become  a  believer.  It  is  hreaking 
Ghrist's  commandment  J  and  teaching  men^  in  the 
most  dij'ectj  systematic,  and  thorough  manner,  to 
do  the  same.  And  who  is  responsible  for  all  this? 
It  is  a  violation  of  religious  liberti/.  It  per- 
petuates under  the  Grospel  a  yoke  of  bondage,  un- 
der the  false  idea  of  a  Christian  privilege.  A 
child,  before  he  can  discern  good  from  evil,  or  has 
any  power  of  choice,  is  religiously  bound  to  an 
ecclesiastical  form,  and  forbidden  ever  after  to 
exercise  his  inalienable  right  of  conscientious 
opinion  as  to  the  form  of  religion.  The  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism  forbids  him,  even  if  he  choose 
and  desire  it,  intelligently  and  voluntarily  to  obey 
Christ.  He  is  trained  up  in  the  belief,  thatt  the 
11 


126  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

moment  he  obeys  Christ,  he  becomes  a  covenant- 
breaker,  and  exposes  himself  to  the  consequences 
of  so  fearful  a  crime.  It  is  in  itself  tyranny,  and 
the  main  pillar  of  all  ecclesiastical  despotism. 
Never  could  an  ecclesiastical  state  establishment 
subsist,  were  it  not  for  infant  baptism."^- 

*  The  proposition  enunciated  above  deserves  a  volume 
devoted  especially  to  its  elucidation  and  confirmation.  The 
past  and  the  present  abound  -with  illustrations  of  it.  One 
fact  out  of  the  thousand  that  might  be  mentioned  I  -will 
here  refer  to,  because  it  is  of  recent  occurrence.  Eev.  F.  0. 
Nelson,  formerly  a  missionary  of  the  American  Seaman's 
Friend  Society' in  Gottenburg,  Sweden,  and  a  Methodist 
minister,  recently  became  a  Baptist,  and  was  "  arraigned 
before  the  bar  of  a  priestU'  court  called  Consistory,  to  an- 
swer to  the  crime  of  having  dared  to  preach  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  and  administer  his  hoi}'  ordinances  according  to  his 
appointment." 

Eev.  Dr.  Dowling,  communicating  to  the  New  York  Re- 
corder a  letter  detailing  these  facts,  says  :  "  It  is  a  circum- 
stance worthy  of  remark,  that  the  special  vengeance  of  the 
priests  of  the  Lutheran  establishment,  seems  to  be  reserved 
for  those  who  deny  their  favorite  dogma  of  infant  sprinkling. 
For  years  past  has  brother  Nelson  preached  without  moles- 
tation the  doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Church,  which  differ 
in  many  points  from  the  Lutheran  standards  ;  but  the  in- 
stant that  he  attempts  to  restore  the  ancient  and  scriptural 
qualification  for  baptism, — '  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy 
heart,' — they  resort  to  an  equally  ancient  mode  of  opposi- 
tion, and,  unable  to  answer  his  arguments,  cry  out,  '  Away 
with  him  !  A  pestilent  fellow  I'  It  would  seem  as  though 
they  felt  that  their  craft  was  in  danger,  and  if  infant  bap- 
tism should  fall,  their  state  religion  and  their  state  support 
must  s:o  with  it." — Christian  Watchman  and  Rejkcior,  Sept. 
13,  1849. 


INCIDENTAL  ALLUSIONS  TO  BAPTISM.  127 


CHAPTER  ly. 

INCIDENTAL   ALLUSIONS   TO   BAPTISM    IN   THE 
EPISTLES. 

If  the  question  of  the  subjects  of  baptism  is  not 
clearly  settled  by  the  law  of  baptism,  as  contained 
in  the  New  Testament,  it  must  be  an  imperfect 
law.  In  the  case  of  circumcision,  and  every  other 
rite  of  the  ancient  dispensation,  the  law  establish- 
ing the  rite  clearly  defines  its  subjects.  And,  a 
jyriori,  we  should  expect  it  would  be  so  with  the 
law  of  baptism. 

The  enactmeut  of  the  law  of  Christian  baptism, 
is  contained  in  the  last  commission.  The  clear 
and  obvious  import  of  this,  in  its  bearing  upon 
infant  baptism,  has  been  shown. 

Besides  this  enactment,  there  are  two  other 
sources  of  light  in  regard  to  the  law  of  baptism. 
The  first  is  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  on  that 
commission.  This  we  have  also  considered.  The 
second  is  the  occasional  and  incidental  references 
and  allusions  to  baptism  in  the  Apostolical  Epis- 
tles. The  light  which  these  allusions  throw  upon 
the  law  of  baptism  is  clear  and  irresistible.  Al- 
though, if  infant  baptism  were  established  by  the 
commission,  we  could  hardly  suppose  that  in 
'  several  historical  relations  of  the  apostolical 
administration  of  this  ordinance,  recorded  as  a 
guide  to  the  church  in  all  time,  not  a  solitary 
instance  should    occur  of   its    administration  to 


128  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGU3IENT. 

infants, — still  it  may  be  said  that  in  each  of  these ' 
recorded  instances  some  peculiar  circumstances 
were  combined  which  forbid  our  drawing  a  uni- 
versal inference  from  them  touching  the  law  of 
baptism.  But  this  cannot  be  said  of  the  references 
to  baptism  in  the  Epistles.  These  references  are 
founded  upon  the  universal  apostolical  usage  in 
that  ordinance.  The  arguments  based  upon 
them  by  the  Apostles  in  the  connection  in  which 
they  occur,  have  no  force  unless  what  is  said  of 
baptism  is  according  to  the  law  itself  of  the  ordi- 
nance, and  the  universal  practice  of  the  Church  in 
the  age  of  insfpiration. 

Baptism  is  referred  to  in  the  following  passages 
in  the  Epistles  : — Rom,  vi.  3 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  13  \  xv. 
29 ;  Gal.  iii.  27 ;  Col.  ii.  12 ;  Heb.  x.  22,  28 ;  1 
Pet.  iii.  21  \  each  of  which  excludes  the  possibility 
that  baptism  was  administered  to  infants  in  the 
Apostolical  Church. 

1.  The  passages  in  Eomans  and  Galatians. 
"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death?"  "For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  The 
language  here  corresponds  with  that  of  the  Com- 
mission, "baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'' 
The  whole  argument  of  Paul  in  Rom.  vi.  hinges 
on  this  fact,  that  Christians,  in  their  baptism, 
made  a  profession  of  the  name  of  Christ,  and  of 
sincere  obedience  to  him, — "  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,'^ — that  in  being  baptized  they  acknow- 
ledged his  death,  and  their  obligation  to  be  con- 


ALLUSIONS   TO   BAPTISM  IN   THE  EPISTLES.    129 

formed  to  the  purposes  to  be  accomplished  by  his 
death, — "baptized  into  his  death."  The  language 
implies  a  voluntary  and  intelligent  profession.  It 
could  not,  without  gross  absurdity,  be  applied  to 
persons  baptized  in  infancy.  Of  the  same  import 
is  the  passage  in  Galatians.  In  their  baptism, 
they,  voluntarily  by  profession,  assumed  the 
character  of  Christians.  Had  any  proportion  of 
those  whom  Paul  addressed  been  baptized  in 
infancy,  the  argument  would  have  been  without 
force.  But  none  of  them  could  have  been  bap- 
tized in  infancy.  The  language  is  universal ;  it 
includes  all  who  were  baptized, — "  So  many  of 
us  as  were  baptized,'' — "  So  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized."  And  if  the  Apostolic  churches 
■were  all  formed  on  the  same  model,  so  that  the 
same  general  description  would  apply  to  them  all, 
there  could  not  have  been  any  Christians  in  that 
age  baptized  in  infancy.  The  necessary  inference 
from  these  passages  is,  that  infant  baptism  did 
not  then  exist;  and  if  all  churches  were  Apos- 
tolical now,  infant  baptism  would  not  now  exist. 
2.  The  passage  in  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  "For  by  one 
Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  That 
the  Apostle  here  speaks  of  outward  baptism  is 
clear  from  the  fact  that  the  "  one  body"  is  the 
visible  church;  and  that  the  visible  church  is 
referred  to  by  this  phrase  is  evident  from  the 
whole  connection.  "Now  ye  are  the  body  of 
■  Christ  and  members  in  particular.  And  God 
hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first  Apostles, 
secondarily  Prophets,"  &c.  And  the  affirmation 
of  this  text  can  imply  nothing  less  than  that  all 
11=^ 


IdO  NEW   TESTAMENT   ARGUMENT. 

the  members  of  the  churcli  enter  it  by  baptism, 
and  that  in  this  act  they  profess  to  be  governed 
by  the  directions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  word, 
and  his  influences  in  the  heart.  This  manifestly 
involves  an  active  and  informed  understanding, 
and  the  exercise  of  faith.  And  since  infants  are 
incapable  of  this,  and  since  the  Apostle  speaks  of 
this  as  a  then  universal  fact  in  the  church,  the 
conclusion  is  irresistible  that  no  unconscious  in- 
fants were  baptized  in  the  Apostolic  age. 

3.  The  passage  in  1  Cor.  xv.  29.  ''  Else  what 
shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  if 
the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  Why  are  they  then 
baptized  for  the  dead  ?"  The  argument  here 
appears  to  be  founded  on  the  fact  that  all  who 
were  baptized,  professed,  in  that  act,  their  faith  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  as  recognizing  the 
symbolical  import  of  baptism,  viz.,  the  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  But  this  could  not  be 
said  of  the  baptism  of  an  unconscious  infant,  who 
could  profess  nothing,  and  recognise  nothing. 

4.  The  passages  in  Colossians  and  Hebrews 
speak  of  the  spiritual  purification,  which  is  essen- 
tial to  salvation,  as  preceding  in  its  order  outward 
baptism.  "  In  whom  ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands — buried  with 
him  in  baptism."  "  Having  our  hearts  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water.''  But  since  an  unconscious 
infant  can  give  no  evidence  of  having  experienced 
that  purification,  they  cannot  be  proper  subjects 
of  the  outward  ordinance. 

5.  The  passage  in  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  declares  that 


RECAPITULATION.  131 

baptism  is  "the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God  ;'^  which  can  imply  nothing  less  than  that  in 
every  case  of  the  proper  administration  of  baptism, 
the  subject  acts  in  accordance  with  the  dictates  of 
a  good  conscience.  But  what  conscience  can  an 
unconscious  infant  have  about  his  baptism  ? 

RECAPITULATION. 

I  have  now  shown  that  the  New  Testament  is 
not  merely  silent  in  relation  to  infant  baptism, — 
it  contains  a  prohibition  of  it.  It  does  not, 
indeed,  mention  it  in  terms  and  forbid  it,  but  its 
prohibition  of  it  is  not  less  clear  and  decisive.  It 
prohibits  it  in  the  terms  in  which  it  forbids  our 
subjection  to  all  religious  ordinances  which  are 
not  commanded  by  God.  It  prohibits  it  in  the 
law  itself  of  baptism,  which  requires  the  baptism 
of  believers  only,  and  hence  forbids  the  baptism 
of  infants,  who  cannot  be  believers.  It  prohibits 
it  in  all  the  inspired  accounts  of  Apostolic  bap- 
tisms, which  are  solely  the  baptism  of  disciples. 
It  prohibits  it  in  all  the  Apostolical  allusions  to 
baptism,  which  are  not  only  silent  in  relation  to 
the  baptism  of  infants,  but  the  supposition  of 
infant  baptism  involves  an  absurdity  in  those 
allusions  -,  a  perfect  non  sequitur  in  the  arguments 
based  upon  them. 

"VYe  are  now  prepared  to  inquire  what  ligbt 
early  ecclesiastical  history  sheds  upon  our  subject. 


132  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH  ON  IN- 
FANT BAPTISM.  TESTIMONY  OP  MOSHEIM 
AND   NEANDER. 

As  the  History  of  the  Church  in  the  ages  im- 
mediately succeeding  the  Apostles  is  strongly 
appealed  to  in  support  of  Infant  Baptism,*  I  pro- 
pose to  give  that  branch  of  the  subject  as  full  aH 
examination  as  my  limits  will  permit.  I  shall 
show  that  the  History  of  the  primitive  Church,  so 
far  from  sustaining  this  rite,  furnishes  indisput- 
able evidence  against  it. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  in  the  outset,  that  while 
many  Pedobaptists  affirm  that  infant  baptism  may 
be  traced  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  up  to  the 
very  time  of  the  Apostles,  they  affirm  it  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  standard  ecclesiastical  historians,  and 


*  To  say  nothing  of  inferior  men,  it  is  sufficient  to  show 
the  weight  attached  to  this  argument  by  such  a  man  as  Dr. 
Chalmers,  and  we  fear  we  must  add, 'the  little  attention 
which  he  had  given  to  the  true  state  of  the  case.     J.  N.  B. 

"  There  is  no  satisfactory  historical  evidence  of  our  prac- 
tice having  ever  crept  in — the  innovation  of  a  later  period 
in  the  history  of  the  church.  Had  the  mode  of  infant  bap- 
tism sprung  up  as  a  new  piece  of  sectarianism,  it  would 
not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  authorship  of  the  times. 
But  there  is  no  credible  written  memorial  of  its  ever  hav- 
ing entered  amongst  us  as  a  novelty,  and  we  have  therefore 
the  strongest  reason  [to  believe]  that  it  has  come  down  in 
one  uncontrolled  tide  of  example  and  observation  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles." — Lecture  XIV.  on  Romans. 


MOSHEIM   AND   NEANDER.  133 

the  most  able  critical  scholars  of  the  age,  Pedo- 
baptists  as  well  as  Baptists.  Mosheim  does  not 
find  it  so  early  as  in  the  second  century.  In  the 
account  of  Baptism  in  the  first  century,  he  says 
it  "  was  administered  in  places  prepared  for  that 
purpose^  by  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the 
baptismal  font.  It  was  at  first  customary  that 
tlie  converts  should  be  baptized  and  received  into 
the  Church  by  those  under  whose  ministry  they 
liad  embraced  the  Christian  doctrine.  Afterwards 
the  right  of  baptizing  CTiristian  converts  was 
vested  in  the  Bishop  alone. '^* 

Here  we  have  Gospel  baptism  only — the  im- 
mersion of  Christian  converts.  In  the  second 
century  he  says :  "  The  persons  to  be  baptized, 
after  they  had  rejieated  the  Creed,  confessed  and 
renounced  their  sinSj  were  immersed  under  water, 
&c."f  We  have  nothing  here  of  the  baptism  of 
unconscious  infants. 

The  decided  opinion  of  Neander,  that  infant 
baptism  is  not  of  Apostolical  origin,  I  have 
already  given  in  Chapter  I.  As  to  its  origin,  he 
expresses  himself  somewhat  more  definitely  in  his 
Church  History,  J  in  language  which  I  will  quote. 

''  Baptism  was  administered  at  first  only  to 
adults,  as  men  were  accustomed  to  conceive  bap- 
tism and  faith  as  strictly  connected.  We  have 
all  reason  for  not  deriving  infant  baptism  from 
Apostolical  institution,  and  the  recognition  of  it 
which  followed  somewhat  later,  as  an  Apostolical 

*  Cent.  I.  Pt.  I.  Chap.  IV.  Sec.  8. 
t  Cent.  II.  Pt.  IV.  Chap.  IV.  Sec.  13. 
X  Torrey's  Neander,  vol.  I.  p.  311. 


134  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

tradition^  serves  to  confirm  thisliypothesis.  .  .  Im- 
mediately after  Irenseus,  in  the  last  years  of 
the  second  century,  Tertullian  appears  as  a  zealous 
opponent  of  infant  baptism;  a  proof  that  the 
practice  had  not  as  yet  come  to  be  regarded  as  an 
Apostolical  institution;  for  otherwise  he  would 
hardly    have   ventured    to   express    himself    so 

strongly  against  it But  when,  now,  on  the 

one  hand,  the  doctrine  of  the  corruption  and  guilt 
cleaving  to  human  nature  in  consequence  of  the 
first  transgression,  was  reduced  to  a  more  precise 
and  systematic  form ;  and  on  the  other,  from  the 
want  of  duly  distinguishing  between  what  is  out- 
ward and  what  is  inward  in  baptism,  (the  baptism 
by  water,  and  the  baptism  by  the  Spirit, )  the  error 
hecame  more  firmly  established,  that  without 
external  baptism  no  one  could  be  delivered  from 
that  inherent  guilt,  could  be  saved  from  the  ever- 
lasting punishment  that  threatened  him,  or  raised 
to  eternal  life ;  and  when  the  notion  of  a  magical 
infiuence,  a  charm  connected  with  the  sacraments 
continually  gained  ground,  the  theory  was  finally 
evolved  of  the  unconditional  necessity  of  infant 
baptism.  About  the  middle  of  the  third  century 
this  theory  was  generally  admitted  in  the  North 

African    Church In    the  Alexandrian 

Church  also,  which,  in  respect  to  its  whole  theo- 
logical and  dogmatic  direction  of  mind  was  so 
essentially  distinguished  from  the  Church  of 
North  Africa,  we  find  prevailing,  even  at  a  some- 
what earlier  period,  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity 
of  infant  baptism/' 

Dr.  Neauder  (allowed  to  be  the  most  critical 


CLEMENT   OF  ROME,  HERMAS.  135 

Ecclesiastical  historian  of  the  age,  and  a  Pedo- 
baptist,)  thus  establishes  the  important  facts,  that 
infant  baptism  is  not  of  Apostolical  origin  ;  that 
it  had  its  origin  in  the  j^eriod  intervejiing  between 
the  last  part  of  the  second  century  and  the  middle 
of  the  third ;  and  that  the  theory  of  its  uncon- 
ditional  necessity  loas  founded  on  the  error  that 
no  one  could  be  saved  loithout  baptism,  and  the 
notio7i  of  a  magical  influence  connected  with  the 
Sacraments. 


CHAPTER  YL 

SAME  SUBJECT  CONTINUED.      CLEMENT  OF  ROME, 
HERMAS,  &C.     TESTIMONY  OF   JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism, 
quotes  passages  from  Clement  of  Home,  and 
Hermas^  but  which  it  is  now  generally  allowed 
have  no  reference  to  infant  baptism.'''    Dr.  Woods 

*  This  is  hardly  saying  enough.  The  Epistle  of  Clement 
to  the  Corinthians,  the  only  undisputed  extant  monument 
of  the  uninspired  Christian  writers  of  the  first  century,  is 
of  itself  sufficient  to  settle  this  historical  question.  Written 
A.  D.  95,  in  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  i.  e.,  from 
the  Metropolitan  Latin  church  to  the  Mctrojyolitan  Greek 
church  ;  (we  use  the  term  Metropolitan  without  reference 
to  its  later  usage) ;  it  has  occasion  twice  to  speak  of  the 
parental  relations  and  duties  in  detail,  yet  contains  not  the 
slightest  allusion  to  the  existence  of  Infant  Baptism.  This 
goes  far  to  prove  that  the  thing  was  then  absolutely  un 
known  in  the  Christian  churches  of  the  East,  or  of  the  West. 

The  same  significant  silence  pervades  the  Epistle  ascribed 
to  Barnabas ;  all  those  of  Ignatius,  and  of  Polycarp  to  the 


136  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

quotes  from  no  Father  earlier  than  Justin  Martyr, 
who  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 
Dr.   Peters   publishes   the   following    extraor- 
dinary statement  in  his  work  on  Baptism,  p.  169. 


Pliilippians,  Avhicli  belong  to  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  This  ominous  silence  on  such  a  topic  is  anything 
but  consent.  The  only  baptism  of  which  they  do  speak  is 
the  immersion  of  believers.  Thus,  Barnabas  (x.  10)  "  Con- 
sider how  he  hath  joined  the  Cross  and  the  water  together. 
For  this  he  saith,  Blessed  are  they  who  put  their  tnist  in 
the  Cross,  and  descend  into  the  water."  Again,  (x.  14) 
"  We  go  down  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and  pollutions, 
but  come  up  again  bringing  forth  fruit,  having  in  our 
hearts  the  fear  and  hope  which  is  in  Jesus  by  the  Spirit." 

There  is  one  passage  in  Hermas,  (Similitude  IX.)  which, 
although  we  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  it  quoted  in 
this  controversy,  (not  even  by  Dr.  Wall)  seems  indeed  ex- 
pressly designed  to  show  that  infants  were  not  then  bap- 
tized, nor  i-egarded  as  fit  materials  for  the  Christian  Church. 
The  passage  is  long,  and  we  can  quote  only  what  is  directly 
to  the  point.  "  First  of  all,  sir,  said  I,  tell  me  what  this 
rock  and  this  gate  denote  ?  Hearken  said  he :  this  rock 
and  this  gate  are  the  Son  of  God. — Then  I  said,  what  is 
this  tower?  This,  said  he,  is  the  Church. — Thou  seest  the 
whole  tower  of  the  same  color  with  the  rocJ:,  and  made  as  it 
were  of  one  stone.  So  also  those  loho  have  believed  in  God  by 
his  Son  have  put  on  his  Spirit.  Behold,  there  shall  be  one 
Spirit  and  one  body. — Before  a  man  receives  the  name  of 
the  Son  of  God,  he  is  ordained  unto  death ;  but  when  he 
receives  that  seal  he  is  freed  from  death,  and  assigned  unto 
life.  Now  that  seal  is  the  water  of  baptism,  into  which  men 
go  down  under  the  obligation  unto  death,  but  come  up 
appointed  unto  life. — As  for  the  rest  (of  the  white  stones) 
which  continued  still  round,  and  were  not  found  fit  for  the 
building  of  this  tower,  because  they  have  not  yet  received  the 
seal,  they  were  carried  back  to  their  place,  because  they 
were  found  very  round.  But  this  present  icorld  must  be  cut 
aicay  from  them,  and  then  they  will  be  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
God.  For  they  must  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  be^ 
cause  God  has'blessed  this  innocent  kind.' — I,  the  Angel  of 
Repentance,  esteem  you  happy,  whosoever  are  innocent  as 
little  children.''  "  j.  n.  b. 


A  FORGERY.      JUSTIN   MARTYR.  137 

"  Justin  Martyr  also,  who  lived  in  the  first  half 
century  after  the  Apostle  John,  says  that  '  infants 
are  washed  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  Son,  and  Spirit !'  "  What  inventor  of  history 
has  victimized  the  venerable  author  of  ^'  Sprink- 
ling the  only  mode  of  Baptism  made  known  in 
the  Scriptures,'^  we  are  at  a  loss  to  conjecture. 
We  may,  however,  safely  conclude  that  what 
Neander,  Wall,  Woods,  Sears,  and  Emerson, 
with  every  motive  to  find  all  that  Justin  said 
in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  and  every  facility  for 
successful  investigation,  did  not  find,  has  no  ex- 
istence in  Justin's  writings.* 

The  following  passage  is  frequently  quoted 
from  the  first  Apology  of  Justin,  as  a  proof  of 
the  early  existence  of  infant  baptism.  '•  Several 
persons  among  us  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  old, 
of  both  sexes,  who  were  discipled  to  Christ  from 
their  childhood,  [ix  TtaiSiov  £ixa9rjtsv9r(iav)  do  con- 
tinue uncorrupted.^^t  However  it  might  harmo- 
nize with  the  views  of  a  high  Churchman  like 
Dr.  Wall,  to  defend  infant  baptism  by  this  pass- 
age, it  is  a  wonder  that  a  Pedobaptist  of  the 
Genevan  school,  like  Dr.  Woods,  should  quote  it. 
Will  Evangelical  Protestants  claim  that  baptism 
disciples  any  one  to  Christ  ?  And  if  infants  may 
be  discipled  to  Christ  by  baptism,  why  not  adults  ? 
To  do  justice  however  to  Dr.  Woods,  it  should  be 
stated  that  in  his  second  edition,  with  his  usual 
■candor  and  good  sense,  after  quoting  the  passage, 


*  See  Appendix, 
't  Wall,  Part  I.  Chap.  II.  Sec.  6. 

12 


138  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

he  adds  :  "  Yet  as  the  phrase  ix  rtat'Swf ,  may  relate 
to  children  who  have  come  to  years  of  understand- 
ing, as  well  as  to  infants,  I  am  satisfied,  on  a  re- 
view of  the  testimony  of  Justin,  that  it  cannot 
well  he  urged  as  conclusive  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism."^  The  passage  will  apply  in  all  its 
force  to  Baptist  churches  at  this  day,  and  comes 
much  nearer  proving  that  these  churches  corres- 
pond generally  in  doctrine  and  practice  with  the 
churches  of  Justin's  day,  than  that  infant  baptism 
is  Apostolic.  Indeed,  baptism  is  not  so  much  as 
mentioned  in  the  passage. 

But  there  is  a  passage  in  Justin  in  which  bap- 
tism is  mentioned,  in  which  he  minutely  describes 
who  were  baptized  in  his  day,  and  also  shows  how 
they  were  baptized.  "  It  is,''  says  Dr.  Wall, 
"  the  most  ancient  [formal]  account  of  the  way  of 
baptizing,  next  the  Scriptures,  and  shows  the  plain 
and  simple  manner  of  administering  it."  "  Here 
ive  have/'  says  Dr.  Sears,  ''from  the  earliest  (con- 
siderable) Christian  Father,  a  positive  testimony 
against  infant  baptism, — an  assertion,  that  the 
baptism  which  had  been  handed  down  from  the 
Apostles,  was  an  ordinance  in  which  one  was  to 
exercise  choice  and  knowledge.''^  "  A  single  dis- 
tinct whisper,''  says  Prof.  Emerson,  of  Andover, 
"  from  the  lips  of  a  Justin  Martyr,  is  of  more 
avail  in  this  argument  than  the  loudest  words 
from  the  mouth  of  an  Augustine."  J 

The  passage  is   contained    in   Justin's   Mrst 

*  Lect.  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  112,  2d  ed. 
t  Chr.  Rev.  vol  iii.  p.  205. 
X  Chr.  Rev.  vol.  vl.  p.  303. 


JUSTIN  martyr's  testimony.        139 

(commonly  called  Second)  Apology  to  the  Em- 
peror Antoninus  Pius.  The  original  may  be 
found  in  Wall's  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism,  Part  I. 
Chap.  2,  Sect.  3.  The  translation  here  given  is 
his,  collated  with  the  original,  and  several  other 
translations. 

"  I  will  now  relate  the  manner  in  which  we, 
having  been  renewed  by  Christ,  dedicate  ourselves 
to  God,  lest,  if  I  omit  this,  I  shall  seem  to  deal 
in  some  respect  perversely  in  this  account. 

"  As  many  as  are  persuaded  and  believe  that 
the  things  taught  by  us  are  true,  and  promise  to 
live  according  to  them,  are  directed  first  to  pray, 
and  ask  of  God,  with  fasting,  the  forgiveness  of 
their  former  sins ;  we  praying  and  fasting  together 
with  them.  Afterwards  they  are  conducted  by 
us  to  some  j^^ace  where  there  is  water,  and  after 
the  same  way  of  regeneration,  whereby  we  were 
ourselves  regenerated,  they  are  regenerated.  For 
they  are  then  washed  in  water,  (lit.  they  then  per- 
form the  hath  or  hathing  in  water — h  r^  vbtvtb 
tots  •kovte,ov  rioLovvtai,,)  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
God  and  Father  of  all,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit 

"And  now,  in  reference  to  this  thing,  (viz., 
baptism,  including  all  the  transactions  described,) 
we  have  learned  from  the  Apostles  this  reason : 
because  we,  being  ignorant  of  our  first  birth,  were 

generated   by  necessity, and  have  been 

brought  up  in  ill  customs  and  conversation,  that 
we  should  no  longer  remain  children  of  necessiti/ 
and  ignorance,  but  of  clwice  and  knoioledge,  and 
that  we  might  obtain  by  water  (lit.  in  the  water — 


140  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

iv  toi  i-SttT'O  remission  of  the  sins  in  wliicli  we  had 
before  transgressedy  afxa^tcuiv  irts^  Cv  rt^oj-^a^rojUEi',) 
the  name  of  the  Lord  God  and  Father  of  all  is 
pronounced  over  him  who  chooses  to  be  regene- 
rated^ and  repents  of  his  sins.  And  this  washing 
(bathing- — 7^vte,ov)  is  called  iUumination,  as  they, 
learnino;  these  things,  are  illuminated  in  mind." 
In  how  many  different  ways  this  passage  re- 
futes the  baptism  of  infants,  so  far  as  the  prac- 
tice of  the  early  church  bears  upon  it !  Justin 
is  giving  the  Emperor  a  full  statement  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism  in  the  entire  Christian 
body.  All  the  candidates  for  baptism  helieve,  en- 
gage to  live  according  to  the  Christian  precepts, 
seek  icith  fasting  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  and 
are  then  baptized.  In  baptism  they  are  not 
children  of  necessity  and  ignorance,  but  of  choice 
and  knowledge.  He  who  is  baptized  chooses  to  be. 
Did  ever  any  one,  ancient  or  modern,  pretend 
that  unconscious  infants  are,  in  baptism,  children 
of  choice  and  knoioledge? — that  ihey  choose  to  be 
baptized  ?  Compare  the  language  of  Justin  with 
the  following  from  Augustine,  written  some  two 
centuries  and  a  half  later,  when  infant  baptism 
was  well  established.  "  Children,  who  can  neither 
will,  nor  refuse  either  good  or  evil,  are  neverthe- 
less compelled  to  be  holy  and  righteous,  when, 
struggling  and  crying  with  tears  against  it,  they 
are  regenerated  by  holy  baptism.  For  doubtless, 
dying  before  the  use  of  reason,  they  will  be  holy 
and  righteous  in  the  kingdom  of  Grod,  through 
grace,  to  which  they  come,  not   by  their   own 


REFUTES  INFANT  BAPTISM.      141 

ability,  but  by  necessity.''^  This  language  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  infant  baptism  ;  that  of 
Justin  is  as  decidedly  opposed  to  it. 

Again,  Justin  calls  baptism,  illumination,  be- 
cause, in  the  instruction  which  preceded  and  at- 
tended it,  the  mind  is  illuminated.  For  a  similar 
reason  he  calls  baptism  regeneration ;  because, 
being  administered  only  to  those  who  were  in- 
structed, and  believed  that  the  things  tliey  were 
taught  were  true ;  who  were  penitent,  sought  by 
fasting  and  prayer  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins, 
and  engaged  to  live  a  new  life,  it  became  the  visi- 
ble consummation  of  an  entire  change  in  the  heart 
and  life.  Both  these  terms,  illumination  and 
regeneration,  applied  in  Justin's  time  to  baptism, 
and  for  the  reasons  which  he  gives — the  instruc- 
tions and  exercises  which  preceded  baptism — are 
a  strong  argument  against  infant  baptism  )  for 
they  imply  an  active  and  informed  understand- 
ing, and  a  work  upon  the  heart,  the  evidence 
and  fruits  of  which  can  be  seen  and  appreciated. 
And  when  baptism  was  afterwards  administered 
to  infants,  while  still  it  was  called  by  these 
names,  we  see  most  clearly  the  notion  of  the 
magical  effect — the  charm  in  the  outward  rite,  of 
which  Neander  speaks ;  a  notion  which,  however 
it  may  correspond  with  the  views  and  practices  of 
a  later  age,  cannot  have  gained  a  footing  in  the 
Church  so  early  as  in  the  first  century  after  the 
Apostles. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a 


*  Emei'son's  Wiggers'  Augustinism  and  Pelagianism,  p.  72. 

12* 


142  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

more  perfect  refutation  of  infant  baptism  than 
this  passage  affords.  In  no  other  form  could  it 
be  so  perfect  and  conclusive.  Had  Justin  said, 
in  express  terms,  ^'  Baptism  is  to  be  administered 
only  to  adults — infants  may  not  be  baptized/' 
while  his  testimony  against  it  would  have  been 
explicit,  it  would  also  have  proved  that  there 
were  some  in  that  day  who  thought  that  infants 
ought  to  be  baptized;  and  hence,  that  the  rite 
then  had  existence.  But  by  simply  describing 
baptism,  and  the  principles  on  which  it  was  ad- 
ministered, in  such  a  way  as  totally  to  exclude 
the  conception  of  infant  baptism,  it  is  a  demon- 
stration that  it  neither  existed,  nor  was  so  much 
as  thought  of,  at  that  time.  It  is  precisely  such 
a  testimony  as  Dr.  Wall  declares  ''  would  be,"  if 
it  could  be  found,  '^  more  material  and  decisive 
evidence  than  any  that  has  yet  been  produced 
from  antiquity  on  either  side."  And  this  is  the 
nature  of  the  testimony  against  infant  baptism, 
both  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  earliest 
Christian  writers.  It  is  not  a  contradiction  of  it 
in  express  terms  ',  this  would  prove  its  actual  ex- 
istence. Nobody  would  take  pains  to  controvert 
a  nonentity.  But  it  is  a  most  perfect  negation  of 
it )  the  most  decisive  refutation  possible. 


IREN^US    OF   LYONS.  143 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SAME  SUBJECT  CONTINUED. — SUPPOSED  TESTI- 
MONY OF  IRENiEUS  IN  FAVOR  OF  INFANT 
BAPTISM. 

iRENiEUS,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  flourished  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century,  a  little  after 
Justin  Martyr.  Dr.  Wall  assigns  for  him  the 
date  A.  D.  167  ;  some  other  writers  place  him 
at  A.  D.  178.  His  public  life,  doubtless,  began 
as  early  as  the  first  of  these  dates,  and  continued 
later  than  the  last. 

From  the  writings  of  this  Father,  a  passage  is 
quoted  by  Pedobaptist  authors,  which,  it  is  claim- 
ed, expressly  refers  to  infant  baptism,  and  justi- 
fies it  as  an  apostolic  practice ;  since  it  is  a  well 
established  fact  that  Irenseus  was  a  disciple  of 
Poly  carp,  and  Poly  carp  of  the  Apostle  John. 

Two  very  able  and  thorough  criticisms  upon 
this  celebrated  passage  have  been  published  with- 
in a  recent  date,  in  which  the  view  of  it  which  I 
shall  briefly  present,  is  sustained  beyond  all  pos- 
sibility of  cavil,  by  numerous  quotations  from 
Irenaius ;  the  one  in  the  Christian  Review  for 
June,  1838,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Sears,  of  Newton,  and 
the  other  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  (Andover)  for 
Nov.  1849,  by  Rev.  Irah  Chase,  D.  D.,  of  Bos- 
ton. 

Dr.  Chase,  in  his  introductory  remarks,  ob- 
serves :    "  Several  years  ago   my  attention   was 


144  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

called  to  tbe  passage  embracing  the  memorable 
phrase,  renascuntur  in  Deum,  in  the  work  of 
Irenasus  against  Heresies ;  and  the  following  arti- 
cle presents  the  results  of  an  examination  insti- 
tuted for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  sense  in 
which  he  there  uses  that  phrase.  I  was  not  satis- 
fied with  any  explanation  of  it  which  I  had  seen ; 
and  I  resolved  to  let  the  author  himself  furnish 
an  explanation.  I  examined  every  page  of  his 
work,  and  was  led  to  a  conclusion  which,  to  me, 
was  quite  unexpected.  I  re-examined  the  whole, 
and  was  again  conducted  to  the  same  conclusion. 
Since  that  time,  I  have,  here  and  there,  met  with 
some  brief  statements,  indicating  that  others  have 
been  led  to  a  similar  result.  (Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius,  Krabbe,  and  Botringen  are  mentioned,  with 
references.) 

"  Most  of  those  who  have  written  with  com- 
mendable erudition  respecting  Irena3us,  have  been 
occupied  with  discussions  which  have  led  them 
away  from  examining  the  particular  point  which 
I  have  endeavoured  to  elucidate.  That  the  im- 
partial and  venerable  Neander  should  seem  to 
have  acquiesced  in  an  interpretation  which  I  sup- 
pose to  be  erroneous,  may  easily  have  arisen  from 
the  intensity  with  which,  while  he  was  reading 
L'enasus,  his  mind  was  attracted  to  other  matters 
than  the  one  here  discussed.  Were  he  to  read 
him  with  a  special  view  to  this,  he  would,  I  am 
confident,  come  to  the  result  set  forth  in  the  sub- 
sequent pages.^^ 

Dr.  Chase's  view  of  the  passage  in  question,  is 


"regenerated  unto  god."         145 

contained  in  the  following  extract,  wliich  includes 
a  translation  of  the  passage  itself. 

"  According  to  Irenceus,  Christ,  in  becoming 
incarnate,  and  thus  assuming  his  mediatorial 
work,  brought  the  human  family  into  a  new  rela- 
tion under  himself,  and  placed  them  in  a  condi- 
tion in  which  they  can  be  saved.  In  this  sense, 
he  is  the  Saviour  of  all.  He  restored  them,  or 
summed  them  up  anew,  in  himself.  He  became, 
so  to  speak,  a  second  Adam,  the  regenerator  of 
mankind.  Through  him  they  are  regenerated 
unto  God  :  per  eum  renascuntur  in  Deum. 

"  The  thought  occurs  frequently,  and  it  is  vari- 
ously modified  by  the  various  connections  in  which 
it  is  introduced. 

"  In  the  passage  which  has  often  been  brought 
forward  as  recognizing  the  baptism  of  infants, 
Irenseus  is  maintaining  that  Christ  appeared  as 
he  really  was,  and  passed  through  the  various 
stages  of  human  life,  '  sanctifying/  it  is  added, 
^  every  age  by  the  likeness  it  had  to  himself ; 
omnes  enim  venit  per  semetipsum  salvare  ;  omnes, 
inquam, — qui  per  eum  renascuntur  in  Deum — 
for  he  came  to  save  all  hy  himself; — allj  I  say^ 
since  hy  him  tliey  are  regenerated  unto  God^ — 
infants,  and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youths, 
and  elder  persons.*     Therefore  he  came  through 

*  111  connection  with  the  translation  given  above,  the  fol- 
lowing note  occurs :  "  Omnes  enim  venit  per  semetipsum 
salvare ;  omnes,  inqnam, — qui  per  eum  renascvmtur  in 
Deum,  etc.  That  omnes  is  repeated  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
it,  not  restriction, but  emphasis,  is  manifest  from  the  ampli- 
fication which  is  extended  throughout  the  paragi-aph.  The 
proposition  that  Christ  came  to  save  all  by  himself,  seems 


146  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

tlie  several  ages,  and  for  infants  was  made  an  in- 
fant, sanctifying  infants;  among  little  ones,  a 
little  one,  sanctifying  those  of  that  age,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  being  to  them  an  example  of  piety, 
uprightness,  and  obedience ;  among  the  youths,  a 
youth,  becoming  an  example  to  the  youths,  and 
sanctifying  them  to  the  Lord ;  thus,  also,  an  el- 
derly person,  among  elderly  persons,  that  he 
might  be  a  perfect  master  among  all,  not  only  in 
respect  to  the  presentation  of  truth,  but  also  in 
respect  to  age,  sanctifying  at  the  same  time  the 
elderly  persons,  and  becoming  to  them  an  exam- 
ple. Thus,  too,  he  passed  through  even  unto 
death,  that  he  might  be  the  first-born  from  the 
dead,  himself  holding  the  primacy  in  all  things, 
the  Prince  of  Life,  superior  to  all,  and  preceding 
all.' 

"  "What  Irenseus  thought  of  baptism,  must  be 


to  be  based  on  the  assumed  fact  that  by  him  all  are  regene- 
rated unto  God.  That  whatever  is  meant  here  by  regene- 
rated, it  was,  in  such  a  connection  as  this,  conceived  of  as 
belonging  to  all,  appears  also  from  other  passages,  in  which 
the  same  thing,  or  its  equivalent,  is  most  clearly  attributed 
to  '  all,'  to  '  man,'  or  to  '  men,'  without  any  limitation  ;  in 
short,  to  mankind,  the  whole  human  family,  '  genus  human- 
um.''  The  critical  reader  will  perceive  that,  in  accordance 
with  this  view,  qui,  in  the  connection  above,  is  regarded  as 
being  used  instead  of  a  causative  conjunction,  and  is  freely 
translated  since  they.  The  relative  qni,  it  is  well  known,  is 
sometimes  used  in  this  manner." 

[We  must  dissent  from  our  venerable  brother  in  this 
single  point  of  his  translation.  Even  if  sutficiently  sus- 
tained by  analogous  usage,  (which  we  somewhat  doubt,)  we 
must  object  to  a  departure  from  the  ordinary  sense  of 
"qui,"  in  this  instance,  as  uncalled  for  and  injurious.  We 
greatly  prefer  the  common  translation,  "  all  I  say,  who  by 
him  are  regenerated  unto  God." — j.  n.  b.] 


"regenerated  unto  god."         147 

gathered  from  the  passages  in  which  he  is  speak- 
ing of  the  subject.  But  that  he  is  speaking  of  it 
in  this  passage,  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence. 
For  a  mere  resemblance  in  one  or  two  words  to 
certain  terms  sometimes  used  in  connection  with 
baptism,  falls  very  far  short  of  proving  the  point 
assumed.  The  context  is  against  it ;  for  the  con- 
text directs  our  attention  to  Christ,  and  what  he 
himself,  personally,  came  to  do  for  the  human 
family.  It  is  by  him,  and  not  by  baptism,  that 
they  are  here  said  to  be  renewed,  born  anew,  or 
regenerated.  And  parallel  passages  are  against 
it ;  for  they  abundantly  confirm  the  sense  which 
I  have  given,  as  being  the  true  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage before  us.^^  Here  follow  several  pages  of 
quotations  from  the  work  of  Irenagus,  from  which 
the  passage  is  taken. 

To  the  same  purpose  are  the  remarks  of  Dr. 
Sears,  in  the  article  before  mentioned,  Chr.  Rev. 
vol.  3,  p.  206,  et  seq.  He  observes :  "  Every 
thing  here  turns  on  the  meaning  of  the  word 
renascuntur.  If  it  means,  they  ivere  regenerated, 
then  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  our  subject;  if  it 
means,  they  were  hajythed,  then  it  proves  the  ex- 
istence of  infant  baptism  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus. 
This  question  cannot  be  settled,  as  many  have 
thought,  by  an  appeal  to  later  writers ;  for  the 
idea  of  baptismal  regeneration  was  of  gradual 
growth,  and  in  every  successive  period,  from  the 
Apostles  to  the  middle  ages,  words  were  changed 
in  their  meaning  to  correspond  with  the  change 
of  ideas.  In  tracing  the  history  of  the  word,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  begin  with  the  words  of 


148  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

Christ,  ^  except  a  man  be  born  of  water/  and  of 
Paulj  '  the  washing  of  regeneration/  and  ascertain 
how  they  were  used  by  the  earliest  writers,  and 
thus  trace  out  the  growing  connection  between 
baptism  and  regeneration,  till  they  became  identi- 
cal. Justin  Martyr,  the  earliest  writer,  regarded 
the  whole  change  produced  by  Christianity,  both 
internal  and  external,  as  regeneration.  Entering 
the  church  by  baptism  was  a  part,  as  an  outward 
change ;  including,  however,  a  previous  spiritual 
or  moral  change  by  repentance  and  faith.  In 
other  words,  the  change  contemplated  by  the 
Gospel  was  not,  in  his  view,  completed,  till  by 
baptism  it  was  expressly  declared.  He  did  not 
suppose  that  the  ceremony  of  baptism  produced 
penitence  and  faith  ;  far  from  it.  He  says,  '  it 
can  cleanse  those  only  who  have  repented.' 
Again,  '  the  name  of  the  Trinity  is  pronounced 
over  him  who  has  desired  regeneration,  and  has 
repented  of  his  sins.'  (So  several  other  phrases 
in  the  passage  which  has  been  quoted  at  length 
from  Justin,  which  see.)  All  these  passages 
show,  that,  with  Justin  Martyr,  baptism,  as  the 
outward  act  of  regeneration,  is  preceded  by  a 
moral  change. 

"  Iren^us  generally  employs  the  word  regene- 
ration, and  others  of  the  same  import,  to  desig- 
nate the  general  work  of  Glirist  in  redeeming  the 
human  race.  If  we  let  him  interpret  himself,  we 
shall  find  that  all  the  senses  in  which  he  uses  the 
word,  grow  out  of  this  radical  signification."  He 
then  quotes  several  passages  from  this  work  of 
Irenseus,  in  which  the  terms  regenerate  and  sane- 


DR.    SEARS   ON    IREN^US.  149 

tify  are  used  in  precisely  in  this  sense,  and  with 
reference  to  the  whole  human  race — passages  pre- 
cisely parallel  to  the  one  in  question,  but  which 
cannot  have  the  remotest  reference  to  baptism. 
Thus  Christ,  being  born  of  Mary,  who  was  de- 
scended from  Eve,  Irenreus  says,  *^  received  into 
his  own  bosom  the  primitive  Fathers,  and  regene- 
rated them  into  the  life  of  God — regenerated  them 
into  the  gosipel  of  life."  Again,  ^'^  he  passed  through 
every  period  of  human  life,  restoring  to  all  com- 
munion with  Grod."  "  After  his  birth,  he  was 
carried  into  Egypt,  to  sanctify  those  ivho  icere  in- 
fants there."  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  the 
Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of  Man,  purifying 
the  Virgin,  who  (through  her  offspring)  regene- 
rated men  unto  God." 

Dr.  S.,  in  the  progress  of  his  investigation,  pro- 
ceeds to  show,  that  "  when  the  word  is  used  in  a 
less  general  sense,  and  regeneration  is  represented, 
not  merely  as  a  provision  made  by  Christ  for  all 
men,  but  a  provision  that  is  accepted,  some  term 
is  added  which  expresses  reception — 2i%  faith,  and 
others  of  like  import."  For  example :  "  How 
can  we  leave  the  generation  of  death,  (our  de- 
praved state,)  except  by  entering  into  the  new 
generation,  mysteriously  and  unexpectedly  given 
us  of  God  for  a  sign  of  salvation,  (Isa.  vii.  14,) 
that  is,  regeneration,  which  is  from  the  Virgin, 
(her  offspring,)  through  faith." 
•  '^  In  most  of  the  particular  cases,  (continues 
Dr.  S.,)  where  Irenseus  applies  the  term  regene- 
ration to  individuals,  they  are  those  who  believed, 
but  were  not  baptized.  The  '  regeneration  of  the 
13 


150  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

patriarchs/  Abraham  and  others,  was  a  regenera- 
tion by  faithj  not  by  baptism.  So  in  innumera- 
ble instances,  he  speaks  of  faith  and  salvation  as 
being  effected  by  the  Spirit,  and  not  by  any  out- 
ward ceremony.  Again  :  ^  giving  to  his  disciples 
authority  to  regenerate  unto  God,  he  said.  Go 
teach  all  nations.'  It  will  not  be  pretended  that 
Irenseus  conceived  the  whole  of  this  commission 
to  be  comprised  in  baptism.  Regeneration  here 
must  mean  the  great  change  produced  by  the  Gos- 
pel, and  may,  indeed,  include  baptism  as  a  part 
of  the  Gospel,  but  cannot  be  limited  to  it. 

"  Although  the  word  regeneration  itself,  in  no 
passage  in  Irenaeus,  stands  for  the  word  baptism, 
it  is  two  or  three  times  used  in  connection  with 
baptism.  We  once  find  ^  baptism  of  regenera- 
tion,' and  once,  '  the  bath  of  regeneration.'  c^o 
the  phrase  which  he  frequently  uses,  '  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance,'  and  another,  ^  the  baptism  of 
truth,'  neither  of  them  mean  that  baptism  is  iden- 
tical with  repentance,  or  truth,  but  merely  that 
they  are  connected — that  the  former  is  a  symbol, 
or  a  part  of  the  latter.  A  passage,  that  the  blind 
man  '  needed  the  bath  of  regeneration,  and  that 
Christ,  after  he  had  put  clay  upon  his  eyes,  bid 
him  go  and  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam,  at  the 
same  time  restoring  to  him  his  formation,  and 
that  regeneration  which  is  by  the  bath,'  as  it  does 
not  refer  to  an  actual  baptism,  but  is  merely  a 
mystical  comparison,  according  to  the  spirit  of 
that  age,  cannot  prove  much,  except  that  Irenaeus 
was  sometimes  a  mystical  interpreter.  Compar- 
ing this  with  another  passage,  it  would  seem  that 


DR.    SEARS   ON    IREN^US.  151 

he  supposed  the  water  to  have  a  certain  mystical 
power  on  the  hody — not  on  the  mind — impart- 
ing to  it  the  seeds  of  immortality,  and  thus  stand- 
ing connected  with  its  resurrection  to  incorrupti- 
bility. 

''  Both  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  appear  to 
have  attached  to  baptism,  besides  its  symbolical 
meaning,  an  obscure  notion  of  its  spiritual  or 
mystical  efficacy.  In  this,  we  learn  from  their 
allusions  to  Scripture,  they  were  influenced  by 
those  two  passages  :  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water,'  &c.,  and  '•  the  washing  of  regeneration.' 
Still  they,  neither  of  them,  ever  advance  the  later 
idea  of  a  regeneration  by  baptism,  where  there 
had  been,  or  could  be,  no  antecedent  repentance 
and  faith.  We  may  regard  them,  therefore,  as 
occupying  a  middle  ground  in  this  respect,  be- 
tween the  Apostles  and  the  later  Fathers.'' 

Dr.  Sears  sums  up  the  matter  in  relation  to  the 
passage  in  question,  thus  : 

"  1 .  The  phrase,  ^  regenerated  through  Christ 
unto  God,'  if  it  mean  the  general  recovery  of  man 
through  Christ's  incarnation  and  redemption,  has 
numerous  parallels  in  the  writings  of  Irenaeus ; 
if  it  mean,  ^  baptized  through  Christ  unto  God,' 
it  has  no  parallel — ahsoluiely  7ione. 

''  2.  The  phrase,  ^baptism  through  Christ  unto 
God,'  is  an  incongruous  idea,  no  where  to  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures,  in  the  writings  of  Ire- 
neeus,  or  in  any  other  writer,  ancient  or  modern. 

"3.  'Kegeneration,'  standing  alone,  without 
any  such  words  as  ^  baptism'  and  ^  bath'  prefixed, 


152  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

and  governing  it  in  the  genitive,  never  means 
baptism,  in  Irenaeus. 

"  4.  That  Christ  sanctified  infants,  by  becom- 
ing an  infant  himself,  has  several  parallels  in 
Ireua3us.  *  He  became  an  infant,  to  aid  our 
weak  apprehension  3' — ^  he  became  an  infant  with 
us  on  this  account/  '  He  went  into  Egypt, 
sanctifying  the  infants  that  were  there/  It  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  infant  Jesus  bap- 
tized the  Egyptian  infants. 

"  5.  That  by  passing  through  the  several  stages 
of  human  life,  from  infancy  to  old  age,  Christ 
sanctified  human  nature  in  these  various  stages,  is 
an  idea  often  repeated  by  Irenaeus,  and  by  some 
modern  writers  too.  But  if  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion be  limited  to  baptism,  or  to  the  baptized,  it 
will  contradict  what  he  elsewhere  says. 

"  6.  The  general  character  of  Christ's  redemp- 
tion or  regeneration,  as  expressed  in  this  passage, 
according  to  our  interpretation,  is  a  favourite  idea 
with  our  author ;  a  similar  sentiment  in  regard  to 
baptism,  is  not  to  be  found  in  his  writings. 

"  7.  The  connection  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
passage  in  question  with  the  former,  as  explain- . 
iug  or  amplifying  the  idea,  is  weakened,  if  not 
destroyed,  by  the  other  interpretation." 

I  have  thus  given  a  sketch  of  the  results  of 
these  two  independent  examinations  of  this  ce- 
lebrated passage  -,  and  they  are  worth,  to  the 
general  reader,  all  the  space  they  occupy  in  this 
work.  They  place  this  matter,  so  far  as  Irenaeus 
is  concerned,  beyond  all  dispute  or  cavil.  Still  the 
reflection  must  have  occurred  to  all  who  have 


THE  OBVIOUS   SENSE.  153 

paid  much  attention  to  this  historical  question,  as 
well  as  to  the  present  writer,  how  incredible,  if 
we  had  not  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  fact,  that 
any  man,  who  had  even  no  other  means  of  inves- 
tigation than  the  naked  passage  itself  in  Dr. 
Wall's  translation,  (the  one  usually  quoted,) 
could  imagine  that  it  contains  any  reference  to 
baptism  !  Are  men  in  their  sober  senses  expected 
to  believe  that  Irenaeus,  or  any  other  sane  writer, 
would  represent  Christ  as  himself  administering 
the  outward  rite  of  baptism  to  all  who  are  saved  ? 
But  this  is  what  he  affirms,  if  "  regenerate"  in 
this  passage  means  "  baptize,"  as  appears  on  the 
very  face  of  even  Dr.  Wall's  version  of  it :  ^'  For 
he  came  to  save  all  persons  h?/  himself;  all  I 
mean,  who  hi/  Mm  are  regenerated  (or  baptized) 
unto  God."  How  obvious,  too,  is  the  considera- 
tion that  "regenerate"  in  this  passage,  is  used 
synonymously  with  "save"  and  "sanctify."  This 
every  one  must  see  by  a  bare  reading  of  the 
naked  passage.  Does  any  evangelical  Christian 
wish  to  believe  that  baptism  was  used  synony- 
mously with  sanctification  and  salvation,  by  the 
Christian  writers  of  this  early  period  ?  Can  such 
an  one  wish  to  ascribe  such  errors  to  the  disciple 
of  him  who  was  the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John  ? 
— the  beloved  disciple's  spiritual  grandson  ?  Ad- 
mitting that  "  regenerated"  here  means  "  bap- 
tized," what  an  appalling  array  must  also  be 
admitted  !  The  supposition  ascribes  to  Irenaeus 
some  of  the  most  fatal  errors  of  Popery,  fully 
ripe. 

Why  should  any  one  wish  to  understand  Ire- 
13* 


154  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT. 

nseus  in  this  passage,  differently  from  what  he 
himself,  in  the  passage  itself,  apart  from  numerous 
others  of  the  same  import,  directs  us  to  under- 
stand him  ?  He  tells  us  lioic  Christ  saved  and 
regenerated  all,  in  all  these  different  ages.  He 
did  it — not  by  baptism — but  by  passing  through, 
in  his  life,  all  these  ages  respectively,  thus  sanc- 
tifying each  period  of  human  life,  setting  a  holy 
example  in  each,  and  rendering  salvation  possi- 
ble to  all  persons  in  each  of  these  periods.  How 
beautiful  the  idea  I  One  cannot  choose  but  to  love 
to  dwell  upon  it ;  and  the  longer  one  dwells  upon 
it,  the  more  beautiful,  the  more  rich  and  evan- 
gelical it  seems  !  But  once  foist  in  baptism  here, 
and  all  its  beauty  vanishes,  and  you  have  in  its 
stead  the  jargon  of  the  accursed  sorceress  of 
Rome  ! 


CHAPTER  yilL 

SAME    SUBJECT    CONTINUED.       TESTIMONY    OF 
CLEMENT    OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

Clement,  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  or,  as  he  is 
frequently  written,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  flour- 
ished in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  and  begin- 
ning of  the  third  century,  and  was  consequently 
somewhat  later  than  Irenasus,  and  may  be  re- 
garded as  next  in  succession  to  him.  Rev.  Dr. 
Sears  published  in  the  Christian  Review,  Vol. 
vi.  p.  311,  a  passage  which  was  probably  never 


\ 


CLEMENT  OP   ALEXANDRIA.  155 

before  referred  to  in  this  controversy,  and  which 
sheds  a  strong  additional  light  upon  the  historical 
question.  It  is  a  decisive  testimony  against  the 
apostolical  origin  of  infant  baptism,  furnishing 
convincing  proof  that  that  rite  was  unknown  in 
the  Church  as  late  as  Clement's  time.  I  shall 
quote  some  sketch  of  it,  chiefly  in  Dr.  Sears'  own 
words,  premising  that  the  original  of  what  is 
translated  from  Clement  may  be  found  in  the 
Review,  as  above. 

'^  In  his  (Clement's)  work  entitled  Pcedagogus 
— in  which  Christ  is  regarded  as  the  overseer  of 
children — he  maintains  that  all  Christians  are  the 
children  of  the  overseer.  ^  We  are  the  children,* 
but  the  Scriptures  mention  us  by  different  names.' 
After  devoting  a  chapter  to  scripture  passages  and 
discussions  about  the  word  children,  he  meets  the 
objection  that  Christians  have  the  weakness  and 
ignorance  of  children,  and  brings  forward  their 
baptism  as  a  proof  to  the  contrary.  The  chapter 
has  the  following  title  :  '  To  such  as  imagine  that 
the  name  children  and  infants  implies  the  simplest 
rudiments  of  knowledge.'     He  then  proceeds  : — 

*  This  is  perhaps  a  sufficient  explanation  of  a  passage, 
quoted  from  this  work  of  CleiTient's,  by  Dr.  Wall,  as  an  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  infant  baptism  :  "  If  any  one  be  a  fish- 
erman, let  him  remember  an  Apostle,  and  the  children  taken 
outof  theioater  ;''—i^  v^ato^  dmoTtw^utVcov  rtai6iwi;.  That 
the  passage  refers  to  baptism,  Dr.  Wall  gives  some  reason 
to  believe  ;  but  who  the  chiklren  are,  is  shown  above.  '1  he 
passage  affords  a  presumption  in  favor  of  immersion,  and 
against  infant  baptism.  They  were  taken  out  of  the  water; 
and  when  taken  out,  they  were  children,  i.  e.  Christians.  If 
Christians  immediately  after  baptism,  according  to  our  con- 
ceptions of  religion,  they  must  have  been  before.  See  Wall's 
Hist.  Vol.  i.  Chap.  iii.  §  9.  Also,  Torrey's  Neander,  Vol.  i. 
p.  312. 


156  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT. 

'We  are  not  called  children  and  infants,  in 
respect  to  childishness  and  simplicity  of  know- 
ledge, as  the  inflated  Gnostics  falsely  say,  for 
when  we  were  regenerated,  (made  spiritual  chil- 
dren by  baptism,)  we  immediately  obtained  the 
complete  knowledge  for  which  ice  were  striving. 
For  we  were  enlightened,  (another  word  for  bap- 
tism, including  also  its  own  proi^er  meaning,')  that 
is,  were  made  to  know  God.  He,  therefore,  who 
is  initiated  into  this  perfect  knowledge,  is  not  im- 
perfect (rude  in  knowledge).  Christ  was  per- 
fected by  his  baptism — [i.  e.  it  was  needful  for 
him  to  be  baptized,  in  order  to  his  complete  fit- 
ness for  his  office).  Now  the  same  thing  takes 
place  in  regard  to  us.  In  being  baptized  we  are 
enlightened;  in  being  enlightened  we  are  made 
children  (of  God);  in  being  made  children  we 
are  made  perfect.  This  transaction  is  also  called 
grace,  illumination,  perfection,  and  bathing.  We 
call  it  hatliing,  because  by  it  our  sins  are  washed 
away;  grace,  because  by  it  the  guilt  of  our  trans- 
gressions is  remitted ;  illumination,  because  by 
means  of  it  we  behold  that  holy  saving  light,  that 
is,  we  receive  a  clear  insight  into  divine  things ; 
and  perfection,  because  nothing  is  wanting.  For 
what  can  yet  be  wanting  to  him  who  has  a  know- 
ledge of  God  ?  He  who  is  regenerated  (baptized) 
or  enlightened — as  the  term  by  which  we  de- 
signate the  act  signifies — is  instantly  delivered 
from  darkness,  and  from  that  moment  has  received 
the  light.  Those  bonds  of  ignorance  are  quickly 
severed  by  human  faith  and  by  divine  grace. 
This  same  grace  of  illumination  is  the  changing 


Clement's  p^edagogus.  157 

of  the  character  (or  life,)  so  that  it  he  not  the 
same  as  before  baptism..  For  religious  knowledge 
rises  with  the  illumination,  pouring  its  radiance 
upon  the  mind,  and  we,  who  were  unlearned,  are 
immediately  called  disciples )  (those  who  have 
been  instructed — opposed  to  unlearned).  It  is  a 
question  whether  this  spiritual  light  arises  when 
instruction  is  imparted  j  for  you  cannot  ascertain 
precisely  the  time  ;  because  both  religious  instruc- 
tion leads  to  faith,  and  faith  is  tamjht  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  connection  with  baptism/  " 

To  these  extracts  quoted  by  Dr.  Sears,  I  add 
the  following,  quoted  by  Dr.  Chase  in  the  article 
before  mentioned. 

"  Knowledge,  therefore,  is  illumination,  which 
removes  ignorance,  and  gives  perspicacity.  Now 
the  rejection  of  the  bad  is  the  bringing  of  the 
good  to  light;  for  what  ignorance  has  sadly 
bound,  is  happily  loosed  by  knowledge.  And 
these  bands  are  quickly  dissolved,  by  faith  indeed 
on  the  part  of  man,  but  by  grace  on  the  part  of 
God;  our  sins  being  removed  by  one  healing 
remedy,  baptism,  received  in  the  due  exer- 
cise OF  the  mind." 

Dr.  Sears  continues :  "  Now  we  ask,  would  it 
be  possible  for  a  believer  in  infant  baptism,  im- 
mediately after  devoting  a  whole  chapter  in  the 
manner  above  described  to  a  discussion  of  the 
word  children,  to  describe  Christian  baptism  as 
fully  as  Clement  does  here,  without  the  slightest 
allusion  to  the  baptism  of  children  ?  The  scope 
of  the  whole  passage  is  to  show  that  nothing  was 
done   ignorantly  by  Christians;  but  that  every 


158        HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

thing,  pertaining  to  their  religion,  was  performed 
in  the  clear  light  of  intelligence.  Every  baptized 
person  was  rixstoj,  fully  initiated  in  spiritual 
knowledge,  actually  enlightened.  The  soundness 
of  his  argument  depended  on  the  universality  of 
this  fact.  If  a  large  number,  all  the  children  of 
believers,  were  exceptions,  then  they,  in  their 
baptism,  would  be  a  standing  refutation  of  Cle- 
ment's doctrine ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  universal 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  his  whole  argument, 
about  an  initiation  which  was  attended  with  im- 
mediate illumination,  would  fail.  And  yet,  how 
often  does  he  reiterate  this  view  !  The  argument 
from  Christ's  baptism  depends  solely  on  this  prin- 
ciple. From  the  moment  of  his  baptism,  he  stood 
forth  complete;  the  Spirit  had  descended  upon 
him.  ^The  very  same  thing  happens  to  us.' 
Now  if  any  Christians — for  he  is  speaking  of  all 
who  were  spiritual  children — were  baptized  when 
unconscious  babes,  without  having  a  perfect  spiri- 
tual knowledge,  a  real  knowledge  of  God,  his  de- 
claration would  not  be  true.  The  Gnostics  would 
bring  up  the  whole  practice  of  infant  baptism,  and 
confront  him  with  these  undeniable  facts. 

"  Should  any  one  suppose  that  Clement  did 
actually  maintain  the  absurd  position,  that  uncon- 
scious infants  were  the  subjects  of  all  the  mental 
exercises  which  he  described,  the  clearest  evidence 
of  the  contrary  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  even  in 
the  age  of  Augustine,  when  the  absurdities  of  the 
effects  of  baptism  were  carried  to  their  highest 
pitch,  and  were  in  truth  applied  to  infants,  such 


REFUTES   INFANT   BAPTISM.  159 

effects  upon  the  infant  mind  were  not  pretended. 
Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the  remark  of  Henke, 
viz.  ^  When  baptism  was  called  an  illmnination, 
new-born  infants  could  not  well  have  been  the 
subjects  of  it.'  We  are  not  now  concerned  with 
the  truth  of  Clement's  sentiments  in  regard  to 
baptism,  but  purely  with  the  question  whether 
they  are  reconcilable  with  infant  baptism ;  and  we 
think  it  pretty  evident  they  are  not.'' 

Besides  the  expressions  quoted  from  Clement, 
which  Dr.  Sears  has  insisted  upon  as  inconsistent 
with  infant  baptism,  the  careful  reader  of  the 
passage  must  have  noticed  several  others  equally 
conclusive ;  as,  ^'  when  we  were  baptized,  we  ob- 
tained the  complete  knowledge /or  loliich  we  were 
striving;"  literally,  contending  with  great  earn- 
estness— which  indicates  strong  religious  exercises 
previous  to  baptism.  '^  We  call  it  grace,  because 
by  it  the  guilt  of  our  transgressions  is  remitted.'' 
This  implies  previous  conviction  of  sin — of  actual 
transgression.  Again,  "  These  bonds  of  ignorance 
are  severed  by  human  faith  and  divine  grace." 
Again,  '^  It  is  a  question  whether  this  spiritual 
light  arises  when  instruction  is  imparted ;  be- 
cause religious  instruction  leads  to  faith,  and 
faith  is  taught  hy  the  Holy  Spirit.''  Here  reli- 
gious instruction  previous  to  baptism  is  expressed, 
and  the  consciousness  of  the  operation  of  the 
Spirit  upon  the  heart,  with  the  exercise  of  faith. 
All  this  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  unconsci- 
ousness of  infancy.  And  finally,  "  Baptism  re- 
ceived IN   THE   DUE   EXERCISE   OF   THE   MIND." 

Nothing  can  be  more  conclusive  than  this. 


160  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

While  Clement  seems  to  have  ascribed  more  to 
baptism  than  Justin  Martyr,  or  Irenaeus,  (and  he 
certainly  ascribed  much  more  to  it  than  the  Scrip- 
tures warrant,)  there  seems  no  good  reason  to 
suppose  that  he  applied  the  terms  "  regeneration" 
and  "  illumination"  to  baptism,  in  any  sense  dif- 
ferent from  what  Justin  Martyr  did.  He,  as  we 
have  seen,  regarded  baptism  as  the  consummation 
of  regeneration,  and  he  expressly  says  that  bap- 
tism is  called  illumination,  because  they  who  re- 
ceive it  are  illuminated,  or  enlightened  in  mind. 

The  reader  is  desired  here,  to  notice  particu- 
larly the  result  of  this  historical  examination  so 
far.  We  are  now  at  the  commencement  of  the 
third  century ;  at  least  one  hundred  years  after 
the  Apostolic  age.  From  all  the  Christian  writ- 
ings extant,  of  this  one  hundred  years  after  the 
Apostles,  Pedobaptist  writers  quote  only  two 
passages,  as  containing  any  reference  or  allusion 
to  infant  baptism.  True,  Dr.  Wall  quotes  several 
others;  but  his  misapplication  of  them  is  so  ma- 
nifest that  no  writer  at  this  day  troubles  himself 
either  to  quote  or  refute  them.  The  first  of  these 
two  usually  quoted,  is  the  one  from  Justin  Martyr, 
which  was  considered  in  its  proper  place — "  Some 
among  us  sixty  or  seventy  years  old,  who  were 
discipled  to  Christ  from  their  childhood'^ — which 
Dr.  Woods  gives  up,  from  the  obvious  considera- 
tion that  the  word  translated  "  childhood"  is  not 
the  Gieek  word  usually  employed  to  express  in- 
fancy, and  denotes  persons  of  such  an  age  that 
they  could  make  an  intelligent  profession  of  faith. 
But  besides  the  evidence  arising  from  the  passage 


I 


A  FACT   DEMONSTRATED.  161 

itself,  tliat  Justin  is  affirming  nothing  of  uncon- 
scious infants,  we  have  the  additional  testimony 
of  the  other  passage  from  Justin,  in  which  he 
minutely  and  carefully  describes  baptism,  both  as 
to  the  manner  of  its  administration,  and  the  per- 
sons to  whom  it  was  administered — and  describes 
it  in  a  way  which  totally  excludes  the  possibility 
that  infant  baptism  existed  in  the  Church  in  his 
day. 

Then  the  other  passage  relied  on  by  Pedobap- 
tists — the  one  from  Irenajus — we  have  also  fully 
examined,  and  found  it  totally  silent  in  regard  to 
baptism.  But  in  addition  to  this  demonstrated 
silence  of  the  passage  in  Irengeus,  we  have  seen 
from  the  passage  in  Clement,  of  Alexandria — a 
later  writer  than  Irengeus, — that  infant  baptism 
had  no  existence  in  the  Church  in  his  day ;  which 
is  a  further  demonstration  that  Irenreus  made  no 
allusion  to  infant  baptism.  We  have  then  the 
historical  fact  demonstrated,  that  infant  baptism 
originated  in  the  Church,  later  than  the  heginnimj 
of  the  third  century  of  the  Christian  era — that  is, 
later  than  one  hundred  years  cftcr  the  death  of 
the  Apostle  John,  the  last  survivor  of  the  Apostles. 

And  that  it  arose  soon  after  this  time,  there  is 
no  cause  for  wonder.  Let  the  scriptural  truth  of 
the  native  depravity  of  man  be  admitted  ;  and  let 
the  notion  also  be  firmly  rooted  that  baptism  can 
wash  away  both  original  and  actual  sin,  and  that 
without  baptism  no  sin  can  be  remitted ;  join 
with  this  the  notion  of  inherent  mystical  sacra- 
mental potency  in  the  act  itself  of  baptism — and 
just  as  surely  as  effect  must  follow  sufficient  cause, 
14 


162  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

the  baptism  of  new  born  infants  must  follow. 
That  this  was  the  state  of  theological  opinion  in 
the  North  African  Church,  in  the  early  part  of 
the  third  century,  Neander  clearly  shows ;  and 
here,  in  the  first  half  of  this  century,  and  on  these 
principles,  infant  baptism  arose.  But  we  will  not 
anticipate  our  history. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ORIGIN    OF  INFANT   BAPTISM. — TERTULLIAN,    OP 
CARTHAGE,    REMONSTRATES   AGAINST   IT. 

The  period  of  Tertullian  is  given  by  Dr.  Wall 
at  A.  D.  200.  He  was,  therefore,  nearly  contem- 
porary with  Clement  of  Alexandria,  though  his 
life  carries  us  somewhat  later  in  history.  From 
this  point  there  is  sufficient  evidence  of  the  ex- 
istence of  infant  baptism.  So  far  then  as  this  is 
concerned,  there  is  no  need  of  further  examina- 
tion. But  it  is  of  some  importance  to  ascertain 
precisely  what  the  later  testimonies  do  prove  in 
relation  to  it. 

Critics  in  ecclesiastical  antiquities  are  generally 
agreed,  that  infant  baptism  is  referred  to,  in  terms 
of  direct  remonstrance,  in  a  passage  quoted  from 
the  writings  of  Tertullian.  The  question  of  chief 
importance  here  is,  whether  Tertullian  opposes 
infant  baptism  as  an  innovation^  or  whether  he 
himself  is  the  innovator^  propounding  novel  opi- 
nions on  this  subject,  in  opposition  to  the  well- 


TERTULLIAN   OF   CARTHAGE.  163 

established  practice  of  the  church.  Dr.  Woods 
maintains  the  latter  position,  and  claims  that 
his  opposition  to  infant  baptism  arose  from  the 
fact,  that  he  was  a  Montanist*  If  that  were  the 
ground  of  his  opposition,  it  could  only  be,  because 
there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the 
Montanists  and  the  great  body  of  the  Church  on 
the  subject  of  baptism.  But  from  the  account 
which  Neander  gives  of  the  Montanists,  and  of 
Tertullian's  connection  with  them,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  there  was  any  such  difference.  The 
Montanists  agreed  generally  with  the  Church  at 
large,  both  in  doctrine  and  practice.  They  held, 
as  the  point  of  difference,  that  the  period  of  inspi- 
ration did  not  cease  with  the  Apostolic  age,  but 
prophets  and  prophetesses  were  to  be  expected  in 
all  ages,  through  whose  instrumentality  the  Church 
was  to  be  perfected;  and  they  claimed  that  Mon- 
tanus  and  others  among  them^  male  and  female, 
had  such  gifts  of  inspiration.  From  a  very  full 
and  minute  account  of  this  subject,  given  by 
Neander,  it  is  plain  that  Dr.  Woods'  conclusion, 
that  Montanism  was  the  ground  of  Tertullian's 
opposition  to  infant  baptism,  is  wide  from  the 
truth. 

Dr.    Sears  makes  the  following  statement   ia 

*  This  opinion  of  Dr.  Woods  is  not  authorized  by  Dr. 
Wall.  It  is  also  expressly  contradicted  by  both  the  Editors 
of  the  two  editions  of  this  Father,  which  we  have  consulted 
— {Rlgaltius  1675,  used  by  Dr.  Wall,)  and  the  new  and 
beautiful  one  of  the  Abbe  Migne,  (Paris,  1834.)  The  first 
Editor  is  a  Protestant,  the  last  a  Roman  Catholic.  But 
they  agree  in  saying  that  Tertullian  was  not  then  a  Mon- 
tanist. J.  N.  B. 


164  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

regard  to  Tertullian's  views  of  baptism.*  "He 
combatted  infant  baptism,  on  account  of  its  vio- 
lating the  fundamental  principle  that  faith  must 
precede  baptism.  His  leading  doctrine  is  stated 
thus  :  ^  Baptism  is  the  seal  of  faith.  We  are  not 
baptized  in  order  to  cease  from  sin,  but  because 
our  hearts  are  already  clecnned  V  In  the  well- 
known  passage,  Be  hapthmo  18,  he  says  :  '  Bap- 
tism is  not  to  be  given  rashly,'  because  pearls  are 
not  to  be  cast  before  swine.  ^  In  every  request 
for  baptism,  both  parties  are  liable  to  be  deceived. 
Therefore,  according  to  each  one's  condition  and 
character,  it  is  better  to  delay  baptism,  especially 
with  little  children' — (^prcecipue  circa  parvulos.') 
This  ^  delay'  was  to  be  ^  till  they  were  grown  up' 
— till  ^  they  were  able  to  know  Christ.'  His  op- 
ponents confronted  him  with  the  passage,  '  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,'  &c.  His  judici- 
ous reply  was,  ^Let  them  come  when  they  are 
grown  up — let  them  come  when  they  understand, 
and  are  taught  whither  they  come ; — let  them 
become  Christians  when  they  are  capable  of  know- 
ing Christ.'  He  undoubtedly  carried  his  caution 
too  far  in  regard  to  virgins  and  widows  ;  still  the 
principle  was  a  sound  one  which  required  good 
evidence  of  piety  before  baptism." 

To  the  same  purpose  are  the  words  of  Neander  ; 
and  I  quote  him  with  the  more  confidence,  be- 
cause he  has  evidently  studied  Tertullian  with 
care.  His  account  of  him  in  his  Church  History 
is  very  full ;  and  besides  what  he  has  there  writ- 

*  Chr.  Rev.  Vol.  iii.  p.  214. 


N.EANDER  ON  TERTULLIAN.  165 

ten  of  him,  he  has  published  a  separate  work  on 
Tertullian's  life  and  writings.  There  seems  to 
be  good  reason  to  rely  with  implicit  confidence 
on  his  conclusions.     He  says  :* 

^^But  immediately  after  Irenasus,  Tertullian 
appears  as  a  zealous  opponent  of  infant  baptism  ; 
a  proof  that  the  practice  had  not  as  yet  come  to 
be  regarded  as  an  Apostolical  institution ;  for 
otherwise  he  would  hardly  have  ventured  to  ex- 
press himself  so  strongly  against  it."  After 
quoting  the  language  of  Tertullian  as  given  above, 
he  adds  :  ^'  Tertullian  evidently  means,  that  chil- 
dren should  be  led  to  Christ,  by  instructing  them 
in  Christianity ;  but  that  they  should  not  receive 
baptism,  until,  after  having  been  sufficiently  in- 
structed, they  are  led  from  personal  conviction, 
and  by  their  own  free  choice,  to  seek  for  it  with 
sincere  longings  of  heart.  It  may  be  said,  indeed, 
that  he  is  only  speaking  of  the  course  to  be  fol- 
lowed according  to  the  general  rule;  whenever 
there  was  momentary  danger  of  death,  baptism 
might  be  administered,  even  according  to  his 
views,  (which  was  Dr.  Wall's  opinion  of  Tertul- 
lian's views).  But  if  he  had  considered  this  to 
be  so  necessary,  lie  could  not  have  failed  to  men- 
tioii  it  expressli/.  It  seems  in  fact,  according  to 
the  principles  laid  down  by  him,  that  he  could 
not  conceive  of  any  efficacy  whcUever  residing  in 
baptism,  without  the  conscious  participation  and 
'individual  faith  of  the  person  baptized;  nor  could 
he  see  any  danger  accruing  to  the  age  of  inno- 

'  Chm-ch  Hist.  Vol.  i.  p.  312,  Torrey. 

14* 


166  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT. 

cence  from  delaying  it ;  although  this  view  of  the 
matter  was  not  logically  consistent  with  his  oion 
system." 

Compare  this  last  clause  with  what  Dr.  Woods 
says  about  Tertullian's  opposing  infant  baptism 
from  his  Montanistic  views.  Neander  has  no  such 
idea. 

Equally  to  our  purpose  is  the  following  from 
Neander,  quoted  by  Dr.  Sears  from  his  work  on 
Tertullian  before  mentioned :  "  Tertullian  declared 
against  infant  baptism,  ichich  at  that  time  was 
certainly  not  a  generally  i:>revaiUng  practice, — 
was  not  yet  regarded  as  an  Apostolical  institution. 
On  the  contrary,  as  the  assertions  of  Tertullian 
render  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  it  had  just 
begun  to  spread^  and  v:as  therefore  regarded  hy 
many  as  an  innovation." 

The  testimony  of  Tertullian,  while  it  proves, 
that  in  the  opening  of  the  third  century,  infant 
baptism  had  its  advocates  in  the  Church,  it 
proves  also,  that  it  could  not  have  come  from  the 
Apostles.  If  any  reader  doubts  this,  I  commend 
him  to  Neander's  Church  History.  In  the  first 
place,  infant  baptism  was  in  accordance  with  Ter- 
tullian's doctrinal  standing  point.  In  the  second 
place,  it  was  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  his  later 
Montanistic  notions.  In  the  third  place,  he  was 
an  earnest  defender  of  all  traditional  observances. 
Several  additions  to  and  corruptions  of  the  primi- 
tive worship  he  defended,  on  the  ground,  that  they 
were  generally  observed,  and  were  supposed  to 
have  come  from  the  Apostles,  such  as  trine  im- 
mersion,  unction  after  baptism,   &c. ;    some    of 


ROBERT  Robinson's  view.  167 

whicli  he  was  frank  enough  to  say  were  ^'  some- 
what more  than  our  Lord  had  decreed  in  the  Gos- 
pel." Now  had  infant  baptism  been  in  general 
use  in  the  Church  in  his  day.  and  been  generally 
understood  to  have  come  from  the  Apostles, — 
while  it  was  in  entire  harmony  with  his  doctrinal 
system — he  could  not  have  opposed  it.  We  search 
in  vain  for  any  motive  for  his  opposition  to  it, 
except  the  one  assigned  by  Neander,  that  it  had 
just  begun  to  spread,  and  was  regarded  as  a7i  in- 
novation. 

Before  closing  this  section,  I  ought  to  remark, 
that  Mr.  Robert  Robinson,  and  many  other  re- 
spectable writers,  take  the  ground,  that  the  writ- 
ings of  Tertullian  afford  no  evidence,  that  infant 
baptism  was  even  broached  at  this  time.  They 
contend  that  the  persons  whose  baptism  Tertullian 
was  opposing,  were  not  infants,  but  children, 
old  enough  to  ask  for  baptism.  There  is  some 
plausibility  in  this  view  from  the  fact,  that  Ter- 
tullian designates  the  class  diS  parvidi  (little  ones) 
instead  of  infantes  (infants).  The  arguments  for 
it  are  fully  stated  by  Mr.  Hinton,  in  his  History 
of  Baptism.  I  am  free  to  say,  however,  I  think 
the  authority  of  Neander  outweighs  them.  I 
have  found  no  historical  writer  who  appears  to 
have  investigated  Tertullian  with  the  care  he  has.* 

*  In  justice  to  the  cause  of  truth,  it  should  be  added  here, 
,  that  Tertullian' s  book  De  Baptismo,  from  which  this  cele- 
brated passage  is  taken,  was  not  merely  written  before  he 
became  a  Montanist,  but  that  it  is  expressly  directed  against 
the  errors  of  Quintilla,  {Advers^ls  Quintillam).  This  fact 
determines  his  stand-point.  Quintilla,  as  all  admit,  was  a 
female  preacher  or  prophetess  of  the  Montanistic  school. 


168  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 


CHAPTER  X. 

SAME   SUBJECT   CONTINUED. — ORIGEN  DECLARES 
INFANT   BAPTISM   AN   APOSTOLIC   TRADITION. 

Origen,  according  to  Neander,  was  born  A.  J). 
185;  and  died  A.  D.  253.  His  writings,  there- 
fore, come  within  the  first  half  of  the  third  cen- 
tury. He  was  a  catechist  of  the  Church  of  Alex- 
andria in  Egypt,  and  one  of  the  most  celebrated 
writers  of  the  early  Church.  In  philosophy  he 
was  a  Platonist,  and  in  theology  an  Eclectic.  His 
philosophy  exerted  a  great  influence  upon  his 
theology,  and  his  religious  eclecticism  led  him  to 
search  thoroughly  all  religious  systems,  and  em- 
brace unhesitatingly  whatever  he  deemed  to  be 
truth.     Hence,  though  he  was  far  from  being  a 

At  first  she  went  farther  in  her  eiTors  than  the  main  body 
of  the  Montanists,  though  she  afterwards  joined  them.  Her 
followers  were  called  after  her  Quiutillians  or  Quintillianists, 
sometimes  Pepuzians,  from  Pepuza,  a  city  of  Phrygia,  in 
Asia  Minor,  where  they  appeared  about  A.  D.  189.  MignCj 
in  his  notes  on  TertuUian,  (Paris,  1834,)  says  that  she  was 
disseminating  her  doctrines  in  Cai-thage,  about  A.  D.  200, 
and  that  TertuUian  wrote  this  book  on  Baptism,  to  oppose 
them.  Her  doctrines  on  baptism,  therefore,  are  not  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  Church  in  general.  Her  sect  denied  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  which  led  TertuUian  to  say  that  they 
had  not  the  same  'God,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  thej^  had 
not  the  same  baptism.  This  book,  therefore,  so  far  fi-om 
proving  that  infant  baptism  was  then  general  in  the  Christian 
Church,  gives  the  first  intimation  of  its  existence,  and  that 
too  as  an  innovation  of  heretical  ongin.  It  is  of  immense 
importance  that  these  facts  should  be  duly  weighed  by 
those  who  now  practise  it.  They  entirely  reverse  the  con- 
clusions of  Dr.  Wall.  J.  n.  b. 


iORIGEN,   OF   ALEXANDRIA.  169 

Gnostic,  in  the  then  acceptation  of  the  word,  he 
had  many  Gnostic  tendencies,  as  Neander  clearly 
shows.  He  introduced  an  allegorizing  arbitrary 
method  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  which 
would  be  absurd  to  sober  biblical  readers  of  our 
day.  Among  other  errors  which  he  held,  he 
agreed  substantially  with  modern  Restorationists 
in  his  views  of  the  attributes  of  God,  and  future 
punishment.  Yet  with  all  his  errors,  he  was  a 
man  of  giant  intellect,  great  excellencies  of  cha- 
racter, and  profound  and  earnest  piety. 

Dr.  Wall  quotes  three  passages  from  his  writ- 
ings which  speak  of  infant  baptism,  as  a  practice 
then  existing  in  the  Church.  The  authenticity 
of  these  passages  is  indeed  disputed  by  Dr.  Gale, 
in  his  Reflections  on  Wall's  History ;  but  it  seems 
to  me  successfully  sustained  by  Wall  in  his  De- 
fence. There  seems  on  the  whole  no  good  reason 
to  question  their  authenticity. 

Of  these  passages — though  they  are  each  of 
them  conclusive  as  to  the  fact  that  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism  then  existed  to  some  extent  in  the 
church,  A.  D.  230-253 — the  one  most  relied  on 
by  Pedobaptist  writers,  is  the  following  from  his 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  be- 
cause it  speaks  of  infant  baptism  as  a  tradition 
handed  down  from  the  Apostles  : — "  Pro  hoc  et 
ecclesia  ab  apostolis  traditionem  suscepit,  etiam 
parvulis  baptismum  dare.  Sciebant  enim  illi 
quibus  mysteriorum  secreta  commissa  sunt  divin- 
orum,  quod  essent  in  omnibus,  genuinae  sordes 
peccati,  quae  per  aquam  et  Spiritum  ablui  debe- 
rent :  propter  quas  etiam  corpus  ipsum,   corpus 


170  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT.  ' 

peccati,  nominatur."  "  For  this  cause  also  (the 
cause  is  stated  in  the  following  sentence)  the 
church  received  from  the  Apostles  a  tradition,  to 
give  baptism  even  to  little  ones.  For  they,  to 
whom  the  secret  things  of  the  divine  mi/steries 
were  committed,  knew  that  there  was  in  all  the 
pollution  of  original  sin,  which  ought  to  be 
washed  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit;  on  which 
account  also  the  body  itself  is  called  the  body  of 
sin/' 

Now  that  the  high  churchman,  Wall,  who  goes 
the  full  length  of  Augustine  upon  baptismal  re- 
generation,— who  makes  baptism  so  essential  to 
salvation,  even  in  the  case  of  new-born  infants,  that 
there  is  no  ground  of  hope  for  them,  dying  un- 
baptized,  except  when  the  parents  had  determined 
upon  having  them  baptized,  but  death  or  some 
other  necessity  prevented — should  think  this  de- 
claration of  Origen  an  adequate  proof  of  the 
apostolicity  of  infant  baptism,  is  not  strange.  But 
that  sound,  judicious,  evangelical  divines,  of  a 
Genevan  tendency,  who  have  before  them  the 
results  of  the  thorough  explorations  into  ecclesias- 
tical antiquities  of  late  years,  should  make  such 
a  use  of  it,  is  next  to  incredible.  However  it  may 
be  disclaimed,  it  is  in  fact  placing  the  support  of 
Infant  Baptism  upon  Church  Tradition.  It  is  not 
pretended  that  either  Christ  himself,  or  any  of  the 
Apostles  commanded  infant  baptism ; — and  the 
so  called  apostolical  precedent  vanishes  on  a  mo- 
ment's inspection.  From  all  the  Christian  writ- 
ings that  have  come  down  to  us,  from  the  first 
hundred  years  after  the  Apostles,  but  two  pas- 


-APOSTOLICAL   TRADITION.  171 

sages  are  quoted  by  Pedobaptist  authors  as  favor- 
ing infant  baptism,  and  these  Dr.  Woods  admits 
are  not  conclusive  proofs.*  Tertullian  shows  that 
some  pleaded  for  it  in  his  day ;  but  this  is  no 
proof  of  its  having  come  from  the  Apostles;  on 
the  contrary,  his  opposition  to  it  is  strong  evidence 
against  that  supposition.  But  Origen  declared 
that  it  was  a  tradition  received  from  the  Apostles  ; 
and  this  is  all  the  evidence  which  Dr.  Woods 
brings,  which  upon  his  own  admission  is  to  be 
deemed  conclusive,  in  regard  to  the  practice  of 
the  church  for  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  the  Apostles. 

But  let  us  examine  a  little  this  so-called  Apos- 
tolical Tradition. 

In  the  first  place,  according  to  the  rule  of  Au- 
gustine, Origen  had  no  right  to  call  this  an  apostoli- 
cal tradition.  "  Quod  universa  tenet  ecclesia,  nee 
conciliis  institutum,  sed  semper  retentum  est,  non 
nisi  auctoritate  apostolica  traditum  rectissime  cre- 
ditur  :f  "  Whatever  the  universal  church  holds, 
and  was  not  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  al- 
ways held,  is  correctly  believed  to  be  nothing 
else  than  an  apostolical  tradition" — or  in  the 
shorter  phrase,  "  Quod  semper,  quod  uhique, 
quod  ah  omnibus'^ — "  What  has  been  held  alwaf/s 
everywhere,  and  by  all.''  According  to  this  rule, 
infant  baptism  was  not  an  apostolical  tradition.  It 
was  held  neither  always,  everywhere,  nor  by  all. 
Tertullian,  a  short  time  before,  had  opposed  it, 


*  See  his  Lectures  on  Inf.  Bap.  pp.  112,  113,  2nd  Ed. 
t  August,  con.  Donat.  cited  by  Dr.  Wall. 


172  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

and  even  in  Origen's  time,  according  to  Neander,* 
similar  difficulties  were  urged  against  it.f  Besides 
we  have  shown,  that  there  is  not  only  no  evidence 
of  its  existence  in  the  Church  the  first  hundred 
years  after  the  Apostles,  but,  from  Hermas,  Justin 
Martyr,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  positive  evi- 
dence against  it. 

2.  Neither  Tertullian  who  lived  before  Origen, 
nor  by  Cyprian  who  lived  after  him,  and  who  were 
strenuous  dsfeuders  of  the  authority  of  tradi- 
tion, intimate  any  recognition  of  this  practice  as 
an  apostolical  tradition.     Says  Kev.  Dr.  Sears  : 

*  Church  Hist.  Vol.  i.  p.  314. 

t  Origen  confesses  this  in  his  Horn,  in  Luc.  14.  '  Quod 
frequenter  inter  fratres  qureritur,  loci  occasione  commota 
[commotus]  retracto.  Parvuli  baplizantur  in  remissionem 
peccatorura.  Quorum  peccatoruin  ?  Vel  quo  tempore 
peccaverunt  ?  Aut  quomodo  potest  ulla  lavacri  in  parvulis 
ratio  subsistere,  nisi  justa  ilium  sensum  de  quo  paulo  ante 
diximus  ;  nullus  mundus  a  sorde,  nee  si  unius  diei  quidem 
fuerit  vita  ejus  super  terram  V  Et  quia  per  baptisrai  sa- 
cramentum  nativitatis  sordes  deponunter,  propterea  bapti- 
zantur  et  parvuli."  In  Wall's  translation,  "  Having  occa- 
sion given  in  this  place,  I  -will  mention  a  thing  that  causes 
frequent  inquiries  among  the  brethren.  Infants  are  baptized 
for  the  foi-giveness  of  sins.  Of  what  sins?  Or  when  have 
they  sinned?  Or  how  can  any  reason  of  the  laver  in  their 
case  hold  good,  but  according  to  that  sense  that  we  men- 
tioned even  now ;  none  is  free  from  pollution,  though  his 
life  be  but  of  the  length  of  one  day  upon  the  earth?  And 
it  is  for  that  reason,  because  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the 
pollution  of  our  birth  is  taken  away,  that  infants  are  baptized.''^ 

The  italics  are  ours.  Who  can  fail  here  to  notice  that 
the  baptism  of  infants  was  a  new  thing,  full  of  perplexity  to 
thoughtful  Christians,  who  found  no  law,  example,  or  ex- 
planation of  it  in  the  Word  of  God  ?  Who  now  is  prepared 
to  admit  the  explanation  of  Origen  ?  Especially  in  the  face 
of  that  Divine  decision  concerning  baptism — "  not  the  put- 
ting away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  towards  God;"  1  Peter  iii.  21.  j.  n.  b. 


~      OTHER   TRADITIONS.  173 

^^It  deserves  particular  notice,  that  in  all  the 
writings  of  'J'ertullian  and  Cyprian,  both  of  whom 
treat  of  the  subject  as  a  matter  of  controversy, 
there  is  no  allusion  whatever  to  an  apostolical  tra- 
dition in  favor  of  the  practice.  Is  it  possible  that 
these  fathers  of  tradition  could  have  overlooked 
so  important  a  point  1  As  Tertullian  devised  the 
method  of  meeting  the  heretics  with  the  autho- 
rity of  tradition,  would  his  opponents  have  spared 
him,  if  these  weapons  of  his  own  could  have  been 
employed  against  him  V^ 

3.  Several  practices,  which  are  admitted  by  all 
Protestants  to  have  been  corruptions  of  the  primi- 
tive worship,  were  well  established  in  the  Church 
before  Origen's  time,  and  expressly  defended  on 
the  authority  of  apostolical  tradition.  And  they 
came  under  the  rule, — practised  always^  every- 
where^ and  by  all.  That  is,  they  were  universally 
practised — no  one  calling  them  in  question — and 
they  came  down  from  preceding  times  as  apostoli- 
cal practices.  Such  were  a  trine  immersion  for  a 
single  one — and  various  ceremonies  attending 
baptism,  as  exorcism,  unction,  giving  salt,  and 
milk,  and  honey  to  the  subject,  clothing  him  in  a 
white  robe,  and  crowning  him  with  evergreen. 
These  practices,  now  rejected  as  innovations,  and 
some  of  them  as  popish  corruptions,  were  estab- 
lished in  the  Church  as  having  descended  by  tradi- 
tion from  the  Apostles,  before  infant  baptism  makes 
any  appearance  in  history.  And  the  fact  that 
Tertullian  maintained  these  practices  on  that 
ground,  while  he  opposed  infant  baptism,  is  a 
strong  proof  that  infant  baptism  could  not  be 
15 


174  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

maintained  on  that  ground  in  that  age  of  the 
Church,  and  by  plain  consequence,  that  it  was  an 
innovation.* 

Infant  communion,  also,  as  Neander  shows,f 
had  a  recognition  in  the  Church  as  early  as  infant 
baptism.  It  is  worthy  of  particular  notice  in  this 
connection,  that  Augustine,  the  only  other  ancient 
writer  who  calls  infant  baptism  an  apostolical 
tradition,  declares  also  that  infant  communion  is 
an  apostolical  tradition.  He  does  this  in  the  fol- 
loAving  passage,  cited  by  Dr.  Wall,  on  whose  au- 
thority I  quote  it.  ^'  The  Christians  of  Africa 
do  well  call  baptism  itself  one's  salvation,  and  the 
sacrament  of  Christ's  body  one's  life.  From 
whence  is  this,  but,  as  I  suppose,  from  that  an- 
cient and  apostolical  traditiony  by  which  the 
churches  of  Christ  do  naturally  hold,  that  without 
baptism,  and  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Table,  none 
can  come  either  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  to  sal- 
vation and  eternal  life  ?  If  then  neither  salva- 
tion nor  eternal  life  is  to  be  hoped  for  any,  with- 
out baptism  and  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
it  is  in  vain  promised  to  infants  without  them."| 

4.  The  language  of  Neander  on  this  point  is 
worthy  of  particular  attention  :  "  Origen  declares 

*  In  a  passage  quoted  by  Wall  from  Tertullian,  eight 
customs,  that  would  now  be  regarded  as  corruptions  and 
superstitions,  are  enumerated,  as  universally  practised  on 
the  authority  of  tradition.  See  his  History  of  Inf.  Bap. 
Part  2,  chap.'  9,  §  4. 

t  Cliurch  History,  Vol.  i.  p.  333. 

X  Wall's  History,-  Part  2,  chap.  9,  §  15.  Dr.  Wall  indeed 
attempts  to  evade'  the  force  of  this  ;  but  we  may  well  thank 
him  for  his  fidelity,  (usual  with  him,)  in  giving  the  passage, 
which  speaks  for  itself. 


-    INFANT   COMMUNION.  175 

it,  (infant  baptism)  an  apostolical  tradition ;  an 
expression  which  cannot  be  regarded  as  of  much 
weight  in  this  (Origen's  age)  when  the  inclination 
was  so  strong  to  trace  every  institution,  which  was 
considered  of  special  importance,  to  the  Apostles ; 
and  when  so  many  walls  of  separation,  hindering 
the  freedom  of  prospect,  had  already  been  set  up 
between  this  and  the  Apostolic  age/'*  The  full 
force  of  this  declaration  perhaps  cannot  be  appre- 
ciated without  reading  the  church  history  of  the 
period.  From  this  we  learn  that  on  every  subject 
of  controversy,  this  was  a  prominent  argument — 
apostolical  tradition ;  and  frequently  it  was  ap- 
plied as  preposterously  as  in  this  case.  Thus  a 
controversy  arose  touching  the  recognition  of  bap- 
tism administered  by  heretics.  Stephen,  bishop 
of  Rome,  declared  for  its  recognition — Cyprian, 
bishop  of  Carthage,  declared  against  it.  Stephen 
urged  apostolical  tradition — Cyprian,  one  of  the 
fathers  of  tradition,  for  once,  manfully  refused  to 
bow  to  its  authority.  Whereupon  Stephen,  a 
pope  in  embryo,  proceeded  to  act  out  Diotrephes 
towards  Cyprian  and  his  associates.  But  if  Cy- 
prian refused  to  yield  to  the  authority  of  tradition 
in  a  doubtful  point,  surely  we  need  not  fear  to 
resist  it  in  a  similar  case. 

6.  The  expression  of  Dr.  Sears  is  worthy  of 
notice.  Speaking  of  the  testimony  of  Justin 
Martyr  (before  cited),  he  says  :  "  Here  we  have, 
from  the  earliest  Christian  father,  a  positive  testi- 
mony against  infant  baptism ; — an  assertion  that 

♦  Church  Hist.  Vol.  i.  p.  314. 


176  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT. 

the  baptism,  which  had  been  handed  down  from 
the  Apostles,  was  an  ordinance  in  which  one  was 
to  exercise  choice  and  knowledge.  How  much 
stronger  is  this  early  testinaony,  than  the  later 
Gnostic  tradition  of  Oriyen,  and  the  still  later  be- 
lief of  the  polemic  Augustine,  in  regard  to  such 
a  tradition  V 

In  refercDce  to  what  precise  point  Dr.  Sears 
calls  this  declaration  of  Origen  a  Gnostic  tradi- 
tion, he  does  not  inform  us,  although  he  elsewhere 
refers  to  passages  in  Clement,  Origen,  and  Basil, 
which  I  have  not  at  hand.  Origen  however,  as 
Neander  shows,  had  many  Gnostic  tendencies, 
though  not  belonging  to  any  Gnostic  sect.  Now 
the  Gnostics  held  that  the  real  meaning  of  the 
scriptures  does  not  appear  in  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  words  spoken  by  the  Apostles  to  the  multi- 
tude, but  that  it  was  revealed  only  to  the  perfect ; 
and  "  within  the  circle  of  the  initiated  it  was  to 
be  continually  handed  down.  The  knowledge  of 
this  secret  tradition,  therefore,  was  the  only  true 
key  to  the  more  profound  exposition  of  scripture.'' 
He  adds,  ^^  other  church  teachers,  whom  the 
spirit  of  Platonism  had  too  strongly  influenced, 
were  not  wholly  exempt  from  that  element."* 
Among  these  Platonizing  teachers,  Origen  was 
pre-eminent.  In  connection  with  this,  the  words 
of  Origen,  in  the  passage  which  is  the  subject  of 
this  discussion,  are  certainly  significant.  "  The 
church  received  from  the  Apostles  a  tradition  to 
give   baptism   to   infants."      But   certainly  the 

*  Church  History,  Vol.  i.  p.  388. 


-      ORiaEN's  OPINION.  177 

Apostles  gave  no  such  direction  in  open  terms. 
No  !  "  They  to  ivhom  the  secret  things  of  the 
divine  mysteries  tvere  committed  knew/'  &c.  Was 
it  then  a  secret  thing,  handed  down  in  the  circle 
of  the  initiated  ?  So  it  would  seem.  Of  what 
value  is  such  cabalistic  evidence  ? 

I  have  been  particular  in  the  examination  of 
this  testimony,  because  I  consider  it  altogether 
the  most  plausible  argument  that  has  ever  been 
adduced  from  ecclesiastical  history  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism.  And  the  result  may  be  briefly 
stated  as  follows : 

1.  If  it  could  be  proved  that  infant  baptism 
was  generally  received  in  Origen's  day,  as  on  the 
authority  of  an  apostolical  tradition,  it  would  be 
no  more  conclusive  as  an  argument  for  it,  than  it 
is  for  the  other  numerous  corruptions  then  pre- 
vailing in  the  church,  at  that  period  and  on  that 
authority. 

2.  I  have  proved,  that  notwithstanding  Ori- 
gen's  declaration  to  this  eifect,  it  was  not  so  re- 
ceived. The  silence  of  the  great  Fathers  of 
tradition  in  regard  to  such  a  tradition  is  conclu- 
sive against  it,  especially  when  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  fact,  that  infant  baptism  was 
opposed  by  Origen's  own  contemporaries. 

3.  If  it  was  a  secret  cabalistic  tradition,  it  is 
simply  contemptible. 

We  may  further  observe,  that  the  constant 
disclaimer  of  Pedobaptist  writers,  when  they  quote 
Origen,  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  his 
opinions,  but  only  quote  him  as  testimony  on  a 
question  of  fact,  is  not  to  the  purpose.  For  if 
15* 


178  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

the  question  of  fact  be,  whether  infant  baptism 
existed  in  the  Church  in  the  Jirst  half  of  the  third 
Centura/,  I,  for  one^  make  no  issue  on  that  ques- 
tion. That  is  an  admitted  point.  But  that  is 
not  the  question  to  which  the  quotation  is  brought. 
The  question  of  fact  is,  lohether  it  icas  handed 
dozen  from  the  Apostles  ?  Origen  testifies  that  it 
was  ;  but  when  his  testimony  is  sifted,  it  amounts 
to  no  more  than  an  expression  of  his  opinion  to 
that  effect.  If  it  be  said  that  Origen,  who  was 
born  within  one  hundred  years  of  the  Apostles, 
had  a  better  chance  to  form  a  correct  opinion  in 
relation  to  such  a  question  than  we  have — if  that 
be  admitted,  it  will  not  avail  for  them,  who  dis- 
claim all  responsibility  for  his  ojnnions  ;  and  it 
will  not  avail  against  us,  since  we  have  shown  by 
conclusive  evidence  that  his  opinion  on  this  point 
is  erroneous. 

One  other  fact  deserves  notice.  Origen  availed 
himself  of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  then 
gaining  ground  in  the  Church,  to  support  a 
Christiano-Platonic  theory  of  his  about  the  inhe- 
rent corruption  of  human  nature ;  viz :  that  the 
souls  of  men  existed  and  sinned  in  a  previous 
state,  and  hence  that  all  men  were  born  sinners ; 
and  that  sin,  in  the  case  of  infants,  must  be 
washed  away  by  baptism.  On  the  other  hand 
Tertullian  strongly  opposed  infant  baptism,  while 
his  theological  position  would  naturally  have  led 
him  to  maintain  it.  It  would  have  harmonized 
perfectly  with  his  theory  of  original  sin,  and  his 
(which  were  the  prevailing)  notions  of  the  efficacy 
of  baptism.   Augustine,  in  maintaining  the  same 


179 

doctrine  against  the  Pelagians,  made  large  use  of 
infant  baptism.  Those  writers  err  egregiously, 
(according  to  Neander,)  who  represent  Tertulliau 
as  opposing  infant  baptism  on  account  of  the  ne- 
cessities of  his  theological  system.  Precisely  the 
reverse  was  the  fact.  The  necessities  of  his  sys- 
tem, had  they  not  been  overpowered  by  the  force 
of  truth,  would  have  made  him  a  Pedobaptist. 
And  his  decided  opposition  to  infant  baptism, 
under  those  circumstances,  amounts  to  near  a 
demonstration,  that  infant  baptism  was  then  an 
innovation  of  recent  date.  But  this  theological 
relation  of  infant  baptism,  in  precisely  the  same 
ratio  that  it  adds  strength  to  the  argument  against 
infant  baptism,  arising  from  Tertullian's  opposition 
to  it,  loeakens  the  testimony  of  Origen  in  its 
favour. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  GRADUALLY  INTRODUCED.— 
CYPRIAN,  NEO-C^SAREAN  COUNCIL,  GREGORY 
NAZIANZEN,  BASIL,  AUGUSTINE,  PELAGIUS. 

The  next  Father  whose  writings  throw  any 
light  upon  the  subject  of  our  inquiry,  is  Cyprian, 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  at  the  middle  of  the  third 
century — a  man  of  many  and  great  excellencies 
of  character,  but  very  unsafe  as  a  religious  guide. 
His  partiality  for  infant  baptism  may  be  as  easily 
traced  to  his  defects,  as  to  his  excellencies.    The 


180  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

spirit  of  Judaism  formed  a  leading  element  in 
bis  religious  character.  He  was  not  only  one  of 
the  fathers  of  Tradition,  but  also  of  Prelacy,  and 
Monasticism.  One  shall  scarcely  find,  in  the 
middle  ages,  higher  encomiums  of  that  grand 
corruption  pointed  out  in  prophecy*  as  a  leading 
characteristic  of  the  great  apostacy,  celibacy^ 
than  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian. 
The  only  excuse  for  him  is  that  he  was  but  '^  a 
novice"  in  Christianit}^,  when  chosen  bishop  of 
the  church,  A.  D.  248,  having  been  converted 
from  paganism  only  two  years  before.  His  whole 
ministry  was  but  nine  or  ten  years. 

The  principal  passage  in  the  writings  of  Cy- 
prian, that  speaks  of  infant  baptism,  is  one  that 
puts  it  out  of  all  doubt  that  infant  baptism  had  a 
recognized  existence  in  the  North  African  Church 
at  that  time;  and  it  also,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  preceding  evidence,  puts  it  out  of  all 
doubt  that  it  was  a  recent  innovation  there,  pro- 
bably of  a  few  years  date. 

A  local  council  or  synod,  composed  of  sixty-six 
of  the  North  African  clergy,  with  their  Metro- 
politan, Cyprian,  at  their  head,  assembled  at  Car- 
thage, A.  I).  253,  to  consider  various  questions 
of  doctrine  and  discipline.  Among  other  matters, 
one  Fidus,  a  country  bishop,  proposed  the  ques- 
tion. Whether  it  were  lawful  to  baptize  infants 
immediately  upon  their  birth,  or  not  under  eight 
days  thereafter,  as  in  the  case  of  circumcision  ? 
A  clear  evidence  that  it  was  but  a  recent  iunova- 

*  1  Tim.  iv.  3. 


-   SYNOD   OF   CARTHAGE.  181 

tion.  For  if  infant  baptism  bad  been  establisbed 
by  apostolical  authority,  and  was  the  uninter- 
rupted practice  of  the  church  down  to  that  time, 
no  such  question  could  have  been  asked.  If  there 
had  been  nothing  else  to  keep  the  minds  of  men 
quiet  about  it  in  an  age  in  which  church  tradition 
had  as  much  authority  as  the  scriptures,  constant 
usage  would  have  prevented  such  a  question  from 
ever  being  mooted.  The  fact  that  such  a  question 
was  asked,  is  a  proof  that  infant  baptism  did  not 
come  down  from  the  apostolic  age. 

The  epistle  of  Cyprian,  giving  the  decision  of 
the  bishops,  is  equally  conclusive  of  the  same 
fact.  In  it  is  not  a  word  intimating  any  command 
of  the  Apostles  in  relation  to  either  infant  bap- 
tism, or  any  of  the  circumstances  connected  with 
it ;  no  apostolical  precedent  alluded  to ;  not  a 
word  of  any  church  tradition  or  usage  in  relation 
to  either  infant  baptism  in  general,  or  the  par- 
ticular circumstance  proposed.  He  expresses  the 
opinion  that  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  is  to  be 
denied  to  no  person  that  is  born,  because  Christ 
said  he  came  not  to  destroy-  men's  souls,  but 
to  save  them.  The  equality  of  infants  and  adults 
in  respect  to  the  "  divine  gift"  is  proved  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  prophet  Elisha  stretched 
himself  upon  the  body  of  the  Shunamite  infant, 
so  that  his  head,  face,  limbs,  and  feet,  were  ap- 
plied to  the  corresponding  members  of  the  infant ! 
The  eighth  day  in  the  Jewish  circumcision,  he 
says,  was  a  type  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and 
hence,  after  the  coming  of  Christ,  is  of  no  im- 
portance.    A  new-born  infant  is  not  to  be  con- 


182  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

sidered  unclean,  so  that  any  one  should  object  to 
giving  it  the  kiss  of  brotherhood,  (one  of  the 
traditional  customs  in  baptism)  because  it  is 
written,  To  the  clean  all  things  are  clean ; — and 
Peter  said,  The  Lord  hath  showed  me  that  no 
person  is  to  be  called  common  or  unclean. 
"  Wherefore"  he  concludes,  "  it  was  our  opinion 
in  council,  that  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of 
God,  who  is  merciful,  and  kind,  and  just  to  all, 
we  ought  to  prohibit  no  one.  Which,  as  it  is  to 
be  observed  and  retained  in  respect  to  all,  so  we 
think  it  is  to  be  especially  observed  in  respect  to 
infants,  and  those  but  just  born,  who  the  rather 
deserve  this  very  thing  from  our  help  and  the 
divine  mercy,  because,  immediately  upon  their 
hirth,  crying  and  iceeping,  they  do  nothing  else  hut 
supplicate  it'^^  The  italics  in  this  novel,  and 
truly  marvellous  decision  are  our  own. 

That  infant  baptism  was  an  innovation  of  the 
third  century,  further  appears  from  the  fact  of 
its  very  gradual  introduction  into  the  catholic 
church.  For,  while  it  seems  to  have  been  but 
partially  established  in  the  African  churches  in 
the  middle  of  the  third  century,  there  is  sufficient 
evidence  that  it  could  not  have  been  generally 
practiced  in  the  Greek  churches  for  more  than  a 
century  later.  The  sixth  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Neo-Caesarea,  held  A.  D.  314,  before  a  Na- 
tional Church  was  established  by  Constantine, 
declares  decidedly  against  infant  baptism.     "  A 

*  See  the  original  in  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap,  Part  I.  chap. 
6,^  1. 


CJOUNCIL   OF   NEO-C^SAREA.  183 

prospective  mother  may  be  baptized  when  she 
pleases.  For,  in  this  act,  the  mother  has  nothing 
in  common  with  the  child ;  (the  child  has  no 
share  in  it)  because  the  choice  which  is  in  the 
PROFESSION  [at  baptism]  is  declared  to  he  EACH 
ONE  S  OWN  :  — 5ta  'to  exdstov  i8tav  Trjv  rtpoai^satv 
trjv  irtl  T^  ojuo/^oy^a  dsLxvvdOaL.f  There  surely  could 
be  no  question  about  the  import  of  this  language, 
if  it  did  not  arise  out  of  the  period  in  which  it 
is  found — after  the  acknowledged  introduction  of 
infant  baptism,  in  one  section  of  the  Church  at 
least.  How  distinctly  is  the  fact  recognized,  that 
in  baptism  there  is  not  only  a  profession,  but  that 
profession  is  the  expression  of  the  candidate's  own 

INTELLIGENT    CHOICE    tgJav    Tt^oai^satv — and  where 

there  could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  an 
intelligent  choice,  there  was  no  baptism,  though 
there  might  be  the  semblance  of  it.  How  could 
an  unconscious  infant  be  baptised,  on  these  prin- 
ciples ?  This  surely  could  not  be  the  declaration 
of  men  that  held  with  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  the 
unconditional  necessity  of  the  baptism  of  even 
new-born  infants. 

The  natural  inference  from  this  canon  is,  that 
the  baptism  of  unconscious  infants  was  not  ad- 
mitted in  the  Greek  churches  so  early  as  314. 
And  Neander  says,t  "  It  was  far  from  being  the 
case,  especially  in  the  Greek  church,  that  infant 
baptism,  though  acknowledged  to  be  necessary  (to 
salvation),   was  generally  introduced  into  prac- 


*  See  the  original  in  Wall's  Hist.  Lif.  Bap.  Part  I.  chap.  8 
•r  Ch.  Hist.  vol.  2,  p.  319. 


184  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT. 

tice."  And  again,  ^^  Among  the  Cbristians  of 
the  East,  infant  baptism,  though  in  theory 
acknowledged  to  be  necessary,  yet  entered  rarely 
and  icith  mnch  difficulty  into  the  church  life, 
during  the  first  half  of  this  period,"  i.  e.  from 
A.  D.  312  to  A.  D.  590.  As  perfectly  as  infant 
baptism  harmonized  with  the  theological  views  of 
that  period,  especially  the  notion  of  the  necessity 
of  baptism  to  salvation,  it  is  not  easy  to  account 
for  the  difficulty  of  the  introduction  of  the  prac- 
tice into  the  Church  generally,  except  on  the 
supposition  that  it  was  an  innovation  of  an  age 
considerably  removed  from  the  Apostolic. 

The  earliest  Ecclesiastical  History  that  has 
come  down  to  us,  that  of  Eusebius,  of  Caesarea, 
was  written  about  ten  years  later  than  this  Coun- 
cil, A.  D.  324.  It  embraces  what  he  deemed 
most  worthy  of  record  in  the  whole  Church,  from 
the  beginning  to  that  time.  Yet  of  so  little 
moment  did  Eusebius  regard  infant  baptism,  that 
he  never  so  much  as  mentions,  or  even  alludes  to 
its  existence.  This  is  a  remarkable  fact  bearing 
upon  the  point  in  hand. 

Conclusive  to  the  same  point,  is  the  fact  that 
Dr.  Wall,  who  has  produced  from  the  early  church 
writers,  doubtless,  every  passage  that  would  goto 
support  infant  baptism,  (and  many,  too,  that  are 
totally  irrelevant,  and  some  that  make  against  it,) 
yet  finds  no  writer  out  of  Africa,  in  either  the 
East  or  West,  advocating  the  practice,  for  wore 
than  a  century  after  its  achnoidedged  estallish- 
ment  in  Africa.  It  is  safe  to  affirm  that  there 
is  no  such  writer.     The  first  writer  of  the  Greek 


GREGORY,   NAZIANZEN,   BASIL.  185 

church  that  mentions  infant  baptism  is  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  in  a  discourse  assigned  by  Dr.  Wall 
to  A.  D.  360,*  one  hundred  and  seven  years  after 
C3''i3rian's  Council  at  Carthage.  He  simply  gives 
his  "  opinion'^  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  infants 
at  once,  where  there  was  immediate  danger  of 
death;  but  where  there  is  no  such  danger  he 
advises  a  delay  of  three  years  or  thereabouts, 
when  they  would  be  able  to  answer  themselves 
some  of  the  sacred  words;  i.  e.  make  personally 
a  quasi  profession  :  a  very  natural  position,  if  the 
commission  of  Christ  was  regarded  as  the  funda- 
mental law  of  baptism,  and  at  the  same  time 
baptism  was  considered  as  necessary  to  salvation. 
Evidently  the  whole  matter  was  yet  unsettled, 
even  in  the  Established    Church. f 

An  Oration  by  Basil  the  great,  who  was  a  friend 
and  contemporary  of  Nazianzen' s,  addressed  to 
Catechumens  in  his  own  congregation,  who  were 
delaying  baptism,  is  another  proof  that  infant 
baptism  must  have  been  at  least  rare  in  the  Greek 
church  so  late  as  A.  D.  360.  He  says:  "Do 
you  demur,  and  loiter,  and  put  it  off?     When 

*  Wall's  Hist.  Part  1.  Chap.  11,  §  7. 

t  It  is  of  great  moment  to  remember  that  "  The  Church," 
in  the  style  of  most  ecclesiastical  historians,  (avIio  herein 
follow  tlie  Catholics,)  means  merely  "  the  party  in  pmoer." 
Frequently,  however,  it  is  the  "  Catholic"  party  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Arian,  even  where  the  latter  were  enjoying  the 
imperial  or  royal  patronage.  But  what  writer  is  liberal 
enough  to  include  in  the  term  the  persecuted  Orthodox 
Dissenters  ?  Their  dissent  from  the  Established  Church  of 
their  times,  was  warranted  by  the  word  of  God  ;  (2  Tim. 
iii.  1-5,)  yet  who  honors  them  for  their  fidelity  ?  This 
*'  Chui-ch  and  State"  style  is  most  deceptive.        j.  n.  b. 

16 


186  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

you  have  been  from  a  child  catechised  in  the 
word,  are  you  not  yet  acquainted  with  the  truth  ? 
When  shall  we  see  you  become  one  of  us  ?'^  &c. 
Dr.  "Wall  says:  ^'When  I  first  copied  out  this 
passage,  I  thought  it  to  be  the  strongest  evidence 
against  the  general  practice  of  infant  baptism  in 
those  times,  of  any  that  is  to  be  found  in  all 
antiquity ;  for  it  plainly  supposes  that  a  consider- 
able part  of  St.  Basil's  auditory,  at  this  time, 
were  such  as  had  been  from  their  childhood  in- 
structed in  the  Christian  religion,  (and  conse- 
quently, in  all  probability,  born  of  Christian 
parents,)  and  yet  not  baptized."*  It  must  appear 
to  every  reader  a  strong  evidence. 

The  gradual  introduction  of  infant  baptism  is 
further  proved  by  the  fact  that  no  evidence 
appears  that  any  of  the  distinguished  Church 
teachers  of  this  period  were  baptized  in  infancy, 
though  there  is  evidence  that  several  of  them  were 
not,  though  born  of  Christian  parents.  The  care- 
ful religious  training  which  Augustine  received 
from  his  excellent  mother,  Monica,  is  well  known. 
Yet  he  was  not  baptized  until  he  was  thirty-two, 
and  his  mother,  though  educated  a  Christian,  was 
not  baptized  till  adult  years. t  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  born  of  pious  parents — but  a  short  time 
before,  if  not  after,  his  father  became  a  bishop — 
was  not  baptized  till  near  thirty.  |  The  parents 
and  grandparents  of  Basil  were  persons  of  most 

*  Wall's  Hist.  Part  1,  Chap.  12,  ^  4. 
r  See  Wall,  Part  2,  Chap.  3.  Comp.  Chr.  Rev.  vol.  13,  p. 
216. 
J  Ibid. 


OMISSION   OP   INFANT  BAPTISM.  187 

distinguished  piety,  yet  he  was  not  baptized  in 
infancy.  He  was  baptized  and  ordained  by  the 
same  man — his  predecessor  as  Bishop.*  The 
Emperor  Theodosius  was  carefully  educated  in 
the  Nicene  faith,  but  was  not  baptized  till  his 
thirty-fourth  or  thirty-fifth  year.f  Chrysostom 
is  another  similar  instance. |  In  short,  says  an 
able  writer,  "  in  all  the  lives  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
first  four  centuries,  given  by  Cave,  some  forty- 
four  or  forty-five  in  number,  not  a  single  one  of 
them  is  there,  born  after  the  institution  of  the 
catechumenical  order,  (and  many  of  them  were 
children  of  pious  parents,)  in  regard  to  whom  it 
can  be  shown  probable  that  they  were  not,  some 
time  before  baptism,  made  catechumens,  (i.  e. 
instructed).  And  it  cannot  be  shown  that  a 
single  one  of  them  was  baptized  in  childhood."^ 
The  rise  and  progress  of  the  Pelagian  contro- 
versy, in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  was  promi- 
nent, affords  abundant  evidence  that  it  was  then 
universally  maintained  in  the  Catholic  or  Ortho- 
dox National  Church,  and  was  recognized  as  an 
Apostolical  institution,  with  sufficient  clearness 
for  the  respective  parties  to  make  it  a  leading 
argument.  One  point  in  the  controversy  was 
original  sin.  Augustine,  in  his  arguments,  fre- 
quently refers  to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism 


*  See  Wall,  Part  2,  Chap.  3.    Com.  Clir.  Rev.  vol.  13,  p. 
216. 

t  R.  Robinson,  cited  by  Hinton,  p.  269. 
X  Chr.  Rev.  vol.  13,  p.  218. 
^  Ibid. 


188  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT. 

as  universal  in  the  Established  Church,  and  more 
than  once  declares  it  to  be  practised  on  the  autho- 
rity of  a  tradition  received  from  the  Apostles. 
And  baptism,  according  to  the  formula  on  which 
it  was  administered,  both  to  infants  and  adults — 
for  they  had  but  one  formula  in  each  of  the  cases 
— was  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  But  as  infants 
had  no  actual  sin,  they  must  have  been  baptized 
for  the  forgiveness  of  original  sin.  And  the 
success  of  this  argument,  the  evident  embarrass- 
ment it  gave  Pelagius  and  his  party,  is  a  clear 
proof  of  the  strong  hold  which  the  practice  then 
had  in  that  Church.  No  man  could  then  deny 
infant  baptism  in  theory  and  retain  his  standing 
in  the  Established  Church.  At  the  same  time, 
how  little  real  force  there  was  in  the  argument  is 
shown  from  the  following  remark  of  Professor 
Wiggins,  author  of  the  fullest  and  most  authentic 
history  of  that  controversy  that  has  ever  been 
published  in  our  language.  After  showing  that 
the  Fathers  before  Augustine  held  different  views 
from  his  on  original  sin,  as  a  ground  of  infant 
baptism,  he  adds :  We  cannot  here  appeal  to  the 
old  Church  formula, — baptism  is  ^  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,^ — in  order  to  prove  original  sin  the 
object  of  infant  baptism.  It  comes  from  that 
early  period  when  only  adults  were  baptized.  In 
every  adult,  actual  sins  may  be  presumed,  and  so 
the  formula,  (when  it  originated,)  had  its  full 
import.'^*  So  Neander,  speaking  of  this  same 
idea  of  Augustine's,  says  :  "  This  was  favored  by 

*  Emerson's  Translation,  p.  345. 


AUGUSTINE.  189 

the  ancient  formula  of  baptism,  whicli,  however, 
originated  in  a  period  when  infant  baptism  had 
as  jet  no  existence,  and  had  been  afterwards 
applied  without  alteration  to  children,  because 
men  shrunk  from  undertaking  to  introduce  any 
change  in  the  consecrated  formula,  established  by 
Apostolical  authority."* 

The  triumph  of  Augustine,  in  this  controversy, 
gave  infant  baptism  an  undisputed  throne  in  the 
Imperial  Catholic,  afterwards  Papal  Church. t  He 
held  that  all  infants,  dying  unbaptized,  were  lost. 
The  Third  General  Council  held  at  Ephesus,  A.  D. 
431,  established  his  system  as  the  infallible  doc- 
trine of  that  church.  From  henceforth  we  find 
no  TertuUians  opposing  infant  baptism,  or  Nazi- 
anzens  counselling  delay,  in  the  bosom  of  that 
church.  J 

*  Ch.  Hist.  vol.  2,  p.  665. 

+  That  it  ever  prevailed  among  the  orthodox  dissenting 
'.  >dies — the  Cathari,  or  Novatianists,  Donatists,  Luciferians, 
jErians,  Vigilantians,  Panlicians,  Paterines,  Gundulphians, 
Albigenses,  and  early  Waldenses,  we  have  found  no  evi- 
dence ;  but  much  positive  testimony  to  the  contrary.  These 
pure  and  persecuted  people  appear  to  have  maintained  the 
primitive  order  in  regard  to  baptism  as  well  as  other  things, 
through  all  the  dark  ages  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation. 
The  representations  to  the  contrary  by  Drs.  Wall,  Murdock, 
Gilley,  and  Messrs.  Perrin,  Leger,  Peyrant,  and  others, 
seem  to  be  satisfactorily  answered  in  the  first  three  chap- 
ters of  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists.  New  York,  1848. 

J.  N.  B. 

t  From  the  decree  of  Theodosius  and  Honorius,  A.  D., 
413,  which  forbid  all  anabaptism  in  the  empire,  under  the 
penalty  of  death,  we  could  hardly  expect  any  Catholic 
Churchman  bold  enough  to  impugn  infant  baptism.  Simi- 
lar sanguinary  laws  were  in  force  wherever  the  Church  of 
Rome  had  power  in  subsequent  ages.  Hence  flowed  the 
blood  of  myriads  of  Christian  martyrs.     Hence,  too,  the 

16* 


190  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

It  is  common  for  Pedobaptist  writers  to  quote 
the  statement  of  Augustine,  that  infant  baptism 
was  received  as  an  Apostolical  tradition ;  but  how 
little  reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon  it,  is  clear 
from  the  fact,  that  such  men  as  Wiggers  and 
Neander,  who  have  investigated  the  whole  history 
from  the  original  sources,  do  not  hesitate  to  pro- 
nounce it  an  unfounded  assumption.  In  my  re- 
marks upon  a  similar  declaration  of  Origen.*  I 
stated  the  grounds  on  which  Augustine  declared 
it  an  Apostolical  tradition,  and  showed  that  his 
rule  does  not  cover  it.  No  one  doubts  that  it 
was  then  so  received;  and  so  was  every  other 
doctrine,  practice,  and  rite  then  maintained  in  the 
Established  church — the  corrupt  as  well  as  the 
pure — the  unscriptural  as  well  as  the  scriptural 
— the  false  as  well  as  the  true.  And  how  many 
errors  and  corruptions  were  then  received  on  this 
authority  ! 

The  circumstances,  too,  in  which  Augustine 
uttered  it,  takes  from  it  any  consideration  which 
might  otherwise  attach  to  it.  It  is  an  ad  Jiomi- 
nem  argument  urged  in  the  heat  of  a  bitter  con- 
troversy. To  bring  forward  expressions,  uttered 
in  the  heat  of  a  controversy,  pushed  even  to  ana- 
themas and  persecution,  is  imposing  quite  too 
much  upon  the  credulity  of  the  multitude,  who 
have  neither  the  time,  nor  the  necessary  facilities, 
to  ascertain  their  real  value  as  an  argument. 

destruction  of  their  schools  and  books.  Hence,  lastly,  the 
odious  calumnies  heaped  upon  their  names.  But  the  day 
of  their  vindication  and  triumph  shall  come.         j.  N.  b. 

*  See  page  168. 


PELAGIUS.  191 

Still  less  consideration  is  due  to  the  expression 
of  Pelagius,  as  it  is  commonly  quoted  :  ^<  I  never 
heard  of  any,  not  even  the  most  impious  heretic, 
who  denied  baptism  to  infants."  If  this  is  what 
Pelagius  intended  to  say,  it  must  be  allowed,  that 
either  he  expresses  himself  with  unjustifiable  and 
unnecessary  extravagance,  or  else  his  knowledge 
on  that  point  was  very  limited.  Dr.  Wall  him- 
self shows  that  it  is  contrary  to  historical  fact — 
for  several  sects  of  heretics,  earlier  and  contem- 
porary with  Pelagius,  denied  all  baptism,  and  of 
course  denied  baptism  to  infants.*  And  many 
orthodox  sects  who  held  to  baptism  denied  it  to 
infants.  Tertullian,  as  has  been  shown,  denied  it. 
And  Neander  shows  that  similar  difficulties  were 
urged  against  it  in  Origen's  time.t  Julian,  who 
belonged  to  the  party  of  Pelagius,  says  :  "  I  have 
written  against  those  who  suppose  baptism  not 
need  fid  for  chddren/'^ 

The  Council  of  Carthage,  418,  at  which  Au- 
gustine was  present,  decreed,  '^  Whoever  denies 
that  children  just  born  are  to  be  baptized,  let 
him  be  anathema.^'§  ^^^  ^^^^  curse  hurled  at 
nobody  ? 

Augustine  says,  "  Men  are  accustomed  to  askj 
of  what  benefit  is  baptism  to  infants  ?"|| 

Chrysostom  also  complained  that  most  persons 
neglected  to  baptize  their  children.^  Jerome 
speaks  of  those  who  refused  to  give  baptism  to 
their  children. ''** 

*  Part  2,  chap.  5.  t  Church  Hist.  Vol.  i.  p.  314. 

t  Wiggers'  August,  and  Pelagianism,  p.  65. 
^  Id.  p.  171.  II  Christian  Kev.  Vol.  iii.  p.  216. 

T[  Ibid.  **  Ibid. 


192  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

Compare  also  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Neo- 
caesarea^  in  this  chapter. 

Pelagius,  unquestionably  was  not  so  ill  in- 
formed, as  that  form  of  quoting  him  would  re- 
present. He  ought  to  have  the  benefit  of  a  fair 
statement  of  his  own  language,  and  then  he  will 
have  enough  to  bear,  what  with  his  own  errors, 
and  all  the  doctrinal  errors  that  have  prevailed 
since,  stigmatized  with  his  name. 

He  was  writing  to  Zosimus,  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  A.  D.  417,  in  hope  of  getting  the  em- 
bryo pope  on  his  side.  Accordingly,  he  takes 
great  pains  to  free  himself  from  all  suspicion  of 
heresy  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  as  it  was 
necessary  he  should  if  he  would  gain  any  credit 
in  that  quarter.  He  says  :  "  Men  slander  me  as 
if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants, 
and  promised  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  any, 
without  the  redemption  of  Christ.  Never  did  I 
HEAR  even  any  impious  heretic,  who  would  say 
what  I  have  mentioned  about  infants.'"''  He 
does  not  say  he  never  heard  of  any,  &c.,  but  he 
never  heard  any.  The  point  was,  that  he  him- 
self was  clear  of  heresy  in  that  particular.  He 
not  only  never  advanced  such  an  opinion,  but  he 
never  had  any  intercourse  with  any  that  did. 
Still  he  does  not  say  but  that  there  might  have 
been  many. 

If,  however,  we  must  admit  an  of  as  implied 
though  not  expressed,  we  will  accept  a  hint  from 
Dr.  Wall.    That  writer,  while  he  quotes  Pelagius' 

*  See  the  original  in  Wall,  Part  I.  chap.  xix.  sec.  30. 


-    MEANING  OP  PELAGIUS.  193 

Latin,  and  translates  without  any  of^  still  always 
reasons  from  it  with  an  of.  But  perceiving  that 
it  contradicts  plain  historical  facts,  and  therefore 
is  valueless — since  there  were  notoriously  many 
heretics,  who,  denying  baptism  to  all  denied  it  to 
infants — to  save  the  testimony  for  infant  baptism, 
he  supposes  Pelagius  meant  to  be  understood  as 
saying  that  he  never  heard  of  any  heretics  that 
held  to  haptism  at  all,  who  denied  it  to  infants.* 
But  here  he  would  be  as  much  at  fault  with  plain 
historical  facts,  as  he  would  be  without  that 
limitation.  If  a  limitation  be  admitted,  let  us 
make  one  that  harmonizes  at  once  with  the  con- 
nection in  which  the  expression  is  found,  with 
Pelagius'  views,  with  the  state  of  the  controversy, 
and  with  historical  facts.  We  shall  then  under- 
stand him  to  say,  that  he  never  heard  of  anybody 
that  held  to  infant  baptism  at  all,  who  denied 
that  infants  are  baptized  as  well  as  adults,  that 
they  might  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This 
does  no  violence  to  the  language,  and  is  altogether 
pertinent  to  the  circumstances.  The  other  inter- 
pretation is,  in  every  aspect  of  the  case,  im- 
probable. 

*  His.  Inf.  Bap.  Part  II.  chap.  v.  sec.  1. 


194  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

CHAPTER    XII. 

RECAPITULATION.      CONCLUSION. 

If  my  reader  have  followed  me  attentively 
through  the  preceding  chapters,  which  treat  of 
infant  baptism  as  a  historical  question,  he  will 
see  that  some  important  conclusions  have  been 
reached. 

1.  If  infant  baptism  were  established  either  by 
the  law  of  Christ,  or  by  Apostolical  authority,  and 
were  generally  practiced  in  the  primitive  church, 
we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  there  would  be 
some  express  mention  of  it  in  the  Christian 
writings  of  the  first  century  after  the  Apostles. 
For  those  writings,  though  few  in  number,  in 
comparison  with  a  later  period,  leave  us  no  room 
to  doubt  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  then  held,  the 
forms  of  worship,  and  the  ritual  observances, 
unless  this  be  an  exception.  For  instance,  those 
writings  clearly  show  that  the  Lord's  Day  or 
Christian  Sabbath,  was  from  the  first  observed; 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  observed  with  primi- 
tive simplicity,  and  also  Agapae  or  love  feasts ;  and 
that  baptism  was  administered  by  immersion,  ac- 
companied with  some  simple  forms  at  first,  but 
degenerating  in  this  respect  through  that  period. 
But  ice  find  no  reference  or  allusion  to  infant  bap- 
tism in  that  primitive  period — the  first  hundred 
years  after  the  Apostles.  Can  we  believe  it  was 
then  practiced  ? 


RECAPITULATION.  195 

2.  If  infant  baptism  were  unknown  in  the 
Church  through  the  second  century,  i.  e,,  the 
first  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the  last 
survivor  of  the  Apostles,  we  should  expect  to  find 
in  the  writings  of  that  period,  not  indeed  an  ex- 
press remonstrance  against  infant  baptism ;  be- 
cause as  a  thing  unheard  of  and  unknown  it  could 
not  be  remonstrated  against  in  terms,  but  such 
descriptions  and  accounts  of  baptism  as  would 
exclude  the  conception  of  the  baptisn  of  infants, 
which,  when  recurred  to  after  the  introduction  of 
infant  baptism,  would  amount  to  a  strong  testi- 
mony against  it.  And  we  find  ttvo  such  explicit 
testimonies;  the  one,  of  Justin  Martyr,  fifty  years 
after  the  Apostles,  the  other,  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  one  hundred.*  Can  any  conclusion  be 
stronger  than  that  infant  baptism  had  no  exist- 
ence in  the  Church  for  the  first  hundred  years 
after  the  death  of  the  last  survivor  of  the  Apos- 
tles ? 

3.  If  infant  baptism  were  an  innovation  of  a 
later  date,  we  should  expect  to  find  the  period  of 
its  introduction  marked  with  controversy  in  regard 
to  it ;  some  pleading  for  it,  and  some  contending 
against  it.  In  the  beginning  of  the  third  century 
ive  find  such  controversy/.  And  one  clear  note  of 
remonstrance  has  sounded  through  all  the  inter- 
vening ages  to  our  day,  viz.  that  of  stout-hearted 
old  Tertullian. 

4.  If  infant  baptism  were  an  innovation,  we 
should  expect  to  find  the  period  of  its  introduc- 

*  Those  quoted  in  the  note  (page  135-6)  from  Baraabas  and 
Hennas,  may  be  added.  j.  n.  b. 


196  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

tion  marked  bj  the  prevalence  of  other  innova- 
tions and  corruptions  of  primitive  purity.  That 
this  was  the  character  of  the  Church  in  the  third 
century  from  its  heginm'ng,  is  universally  ad- 
mitted. 

5.  If  infant  baptism  were  introduced  at  a 
period  of  the  Church  when  Apostolical  Tradition 
was  accustomed  to  be  pleaded  for  all  its  doctrines 
and  observances — those  which  are  acknowledged 
innovations  and  corruptions,  as  well  as  those 
which  are  scriptural — we  should  expect  such  a 
claim  set  up  in  its  behalf.  Such  a  note  has  come 
down  to  us,  feeble  at  first,  hut  icaxing  louder  as 
the  distance  of  time  from  the  Apostles  increases  : 
a  very  suspicious  circumstance. 

6.  If  infant  baptism  were  an  innovation,  we 
should  expect  to  find  questions  asked  upon  trivial 
and  unimportant  circumstances,  such  as  will 
always  occur  to  some  minds  about  a  new  thing, 
but  w^iich  no  one  asks  in  regard  to  an  old  and 
well  settled  usage.  So  we  find  it,  as  witness  the 
question  of  Fidus  to  Cyprian  and  the  sixty-six 
bishops. 

7.  If  infant  baptism  were  an  innovation  and 
corruption,  we  should  expect  to  find  it  logically 
and  practically  connected  wdth  some  truth  indeed 
— for  how  else  could  it  gain  a  foothold  ?  but  with 
greater  and  more  fundamental  error.  So  we  find 
it  connected  on  the  one  side  with  the  doctrine 
of  original  corruption  from  Adam,  and  on  the 
other  with  the  fatal  error  of  a  magical  potency  in 
the  sacrament  itself  to  cleanse  from  sin  and  re- 
generate  the   soul;    and    hence    necessary   for 


RECAPITULATION  197 

infants,  to  cleanse  them  from  native  corruption 
and  renew  them  for  eternal  life. 

8.  If  infant  baptism  were  a  corruption  we 
should  expect  to  find  it  based  upon  misunderstood 
and  misapplied  Scripture.  And  so  we  find  it. 
Through  all  the  first  ages  of  Pedobaptism,  almost 
the  sole  text  quoted  was,  ^^  Except  one  be  born 
of  water  and  the  Spirit,'^  &c.  Not  an  example 
have  I  found  of  any  reference  in  those  ages  to  the 
ha.ptism  of  households.  The  changes  are  continu- 
ally rung  on  the  passage  above — the  water  being 
supposed  to  mean  baptism.  From  a  like  misap- 
prehension, and  a  corresponding  misapplication  of 
John  vi.  53,  to  the  other  sacrament,  Infant  Com- 
munion was  coeval  in  its  origin  with  infant  bap- 
tism, and  went  hand  and  hand  with  it  through 
several  centuries. 

9.  If  infant  baptism  were  an  innovation,  we 
should  not  expect  to  see  it  come  at  once  into 
general  recognition  and  practice — born  in  full 
growth  and  panoply,  like  Minerva  from  Jupiter's 
brain — but  gradually  spreading  and  acquiring 
strength  ',  the  Church  being  for  a  time  in  a  state 
of  visible  transition  in  respect  to  it.  So  we  find 
it; — beginning  early  in  the  third  century,  en- 
countering in  the  outset  the  opposition  of  Tertul- 
lian,  it  nevertheless  was  well  established  by  the 
middle  of  that  century  in  North  Africa.  Else- 
where, encountering  indifi"erence  rather  than 
opposition  it  slowly  though  surely  gained  ground ; 
yet  so  gradually  that  more  than  a  century  after 
its  first  establishment  in  Africa,  we  find  a  Na- 
zianzen  maintaining  a  position  neither  Pedobaptist 

17 


198  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

nor  Antipedobaptist,  but  combining  elements  of 
both ',  and  this  clear  transition  state  further 
evinced  by  the  well  established  fact  that  the  cus- 
tom was  generally  more  honoured  in  the  breach 
than  in  the  observance ;  until  in  the  opening  of 
the  fifth  century,  by  the  issue  of  the  Pelagian 
controversy  it  becomes  fully  recognized  in  the 
Established  Catholic  Church  ',  and  in  the  thirty- 
second  year  of  that  century  established  by  the 
General  Council  of  Ephesus,  as  the  universal  law 
of  the  Church  founded  on  the  supposed  absolute 
and  unqualified  necessity  of  baptism  to  salvation. 
10.  If  infant  baptism  were  a  corruption,  we 
should  expect  that  it  would  gain  a  stronger  hold, 
and  make  a  more  prominent  figure,  in  proportion 
as  the  Church  grew  more  corrupt.  Such  was  the 
fact  in  regard  to  it.  No  fact  is  better  established 
in  ecclesiastical  history  than  this.  Whereas,  in 
proportion  as  the  Church  has  grown  more  pure, 
since  the  time  of  the  Keformation,  especially 
where  Liberty  and  the  Bible  have  been  enjoyed, 
infant  baptism  loses  its  hold,  and  falls  into  desu- 
etude, in  spite  of  every  efi'ort  to  maintain  it. 

And  now  let  us  briefly  glance  at  the  course  of 
the  entire  argument  contained  in  the  preceding 
pages. 

In  Part  I.  we  have  carefully  and  patiently  ex- 
amined the  Covenant  of  Circumcision,  both  as  to 
its  nature,  its  form,  its  rite,  the  blessings  pledged 
by  it,  and  its  duration,  and  have  found  that  no 
inference  can  be  drawn  from  it  in  support  of  In- 
fant Baptism.  We  have  seen  that  so  far  is  it  from 


GENERAL  RECAPITULATION.  199 

being  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  its  form,  spirit,  and 
rite,  as  well  as  the  express  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture, all  demonstrate  its  identity  with  the  Old 
Covenant.  We  have  found,  that  so  far  is  it  from 
remaining  in  favour  as  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  Church,  with  baptism  a  substitute  for  its 
original  rite,  the  rite  of  circumcision  was  essential 
part  of  the  Covenant  itself,  appointed  to  be  ob- 
served without  failure  or  exception,  while  the 
Covenant  itself  should  endure ;  that  both 
Covenant  and  rite,  as  to  any  divine  authority,  ex- 
pired at  the  same  moment,  together  with  all  the 
Jewish  ritual,  when  our  Saviour  said,  ^^  It  is 
finished,"  and  gave  up  the  ghost;  and  that  the  di- 
rect declarations  of  the  Apostles,  demonstrate 
that  Christian  baptism  is  not  the  substitute  of 
Jewish  circumcision. 

In  Part  II.  we  have  seen  the  inconclusiveness 
of  the  arguments  usually  brought  from  the  New 
Testament  in  support  of  Infant  Baptism — we  have 
seen,  from  direct  Apostolical  authority,  that  in- 
fant baptism,  if  not  ordained  by  direct  command 
or  clear  Apostolical  precedent,  is  forbidden  in  the 
New  Testament ;  we  have  seen  that  so  far  is 
infant  baptism  from  being  Christian  baptism,  it  is 
contrary  to  and  subversive  of  the  Law  of  Chris- 
tian baptism  as  enacted  by  the  King  in  Zion  ;  we 
have  seen  that  while  the  baptism  of  believers  only 
,was  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  as  shown  from 
the  records  of  their  ministry,  every  apostolical 
allusion  to  baptism  is,  in  effect,  a  prohibition  of 
infant  baptism — and  finally,  we  have  examined 
the  early  History  of  the  Church,  in  relation  to 


200  RESULT   OF  THE   EXAMINATION. 

this  subject,  and  found  no  expression  or  allusion 
in  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers  justifying  the 
belief  of  the  existence  of  this  rite  in  the  two  first 
centuries  of  the  Church,  but  on  the  contrary 
plain  declarations  that  it  did  not  then  exist ;  and 
that  so  far  is  Ecclesiastical  History  from  showing 
it  to  be  an  apostolical  practice,  it  shows  that  it 
originated  in  the  Catholic  Church,  as  late  as  the 
first  half  of  the  third  century. 

And  in  view  of  these  clear  instructions  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  these  corroborative  historical  facts, 
what  must  be  the  duty  of  every  Christian  in  re- 
gard to  this  rite  ?  Can  he,  in  consistency  with  a 
sound  allegiance  to  his  Sovereign  and  Head, 
maintain  it,  either  by  profession,  precept,  example, 
or  participation  ?  Grant  that  a  sincere  and  earnest 
piety  may  make  an  auxiliary  of  it,  in  the  religious 
education  of  children,  has  piety  a  right  to  em- 
ploy such  a  foreign  auxiliary  ?  Surely  the  piety 
must  be  both  defective  and  supererogative,  that 
holds  up,  as  an  ordinance  of  God,  an  invention  of 
men;  and  an  invention,  too,  which  makes  void 
the  corresponding  ordinance  of  God.  The  disas- 
trous efi"ects  of  such  tampering  with  God's  ordi- 
nances, originating  even  in  sincere  and  earnest 
piety,  the  history  of  the  Church  has,  alas,  too 
clearly  exhibited.*     Hear  the  strong,  clear-toned 

*  While  the  peculiar  benefts  supposed  to  be  secured 
through  infant  baptism,  by  its  first  advocates,  are  now  ad- 
mitted by  most  Evangelical  Pedobaptists  to  be  imaxjinary, 
this,  alas,  is  far  from  being  the  case  with  its  evils.  A  vol- 
ume might  be  written  on  this  subject,  not  unworthy  of 
ascai.  J.  N.  B. 


DUTY   OP   CHRISTIANS.  201 

remonstrance  of  that  great  Apostle,  whose  life 
and  sayings  fill  up  as  large  a  portion  of  the  New 
Testament  as  is  occupied  with  the  record  of  the 
life  and  sayings  of  the  Saviour  himself : — "  If  ye 

BE  DEAD  WITH  ChRIST  FROM  THE  RUDIMENTS 
OF  THE  WORLD,  WHY,  AS  THOUGH  LIVING  IN  THE 
WORLD,  ARE  YE  SUBJECT  TO  ORDINANCES,  AFTER 
THE  COMMANDMENTS  AND  DOCTRINES  OP  MEN?'' 


17^ 


APPENDIX. 


(Referred  to  in  the  note,  p.  135,) 

Dr.  Wall,  the  learned  historical  apologist  for 
infant  baptism,  several  times  referred  to  in  the 
preceding  pages,  makes  the  following  remarks 
upon  a  supposed  false  quotation  from  Justin 
Martyr  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  which  it 
may  not  be  inappropriate  to  present,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  apocryphal  testimony  presented  by 
Dr.  Peters.  It  is  in  his  History  of  Inf.  Bap. 
Vol.  iv.  p.  511.    Oxford,  1836.  * 

"  Some  of  the  Antipedobaptist  writers  do  give 
us  occasion  to  observe  the  great  mischief  to  reli- 
gion that  comes  by  any  one's  forging  words,  and 
attributing  them  in  print  to  any  ancient  father; 
so  great,  that  thougKthe  first  forger  should  repent, 
and  publicy  recant  what  he  has  said,  yet  the  mis- 
chief would  continue  by  ignorant  men's  taking 
him  at  his  first  word,  and  commonly  adding  to  it. 

^^  Justin  Martyr  is  (a  very  few  excepted)  the 
eldest  of  the  Christians  whose  books  are  left  to 
us.  He  was  born  in  the  Apostles'  time,  and 
wrote  about  forty  years  after  it.     A  testimony  of 


204  APPENDIX. 

his  is  more  considerable  than  of  five  or  six  later 
ones.  Any  words  of  his,  that  should  plainly  and 
expressly  determine,  either  for  or  against  infant 
baptism,  would  be  a  more  material  and  decisive 
evidence  than  any  that  has  yet  been  produced 
from  antiquity  on  either  side.  The  greater  must 
the  impiety  be  of  any  writer  in  this  controversy, 
who  should  forge  such  decisive  words  in  his 
name. 

"  Mr.  Gale,  writing  his  '  Reflections'  on  a 
passage  which  I  had  cited  out  of  Justin,  adds 
these  words : — '  St.  Justin  here  mentions  only 
adult  persons,  and  elsewhere  says  that  adult  per- 
sons only  can,  or  ought  to  be,  baptized.'  This, 
if  true,  is  a  very  positive  evidence.  Mr.  Davye 
recites  Mr.  Gale's  words,  and  adds  to  them  an- 
other forgery  of  my  confessing  the  thing  to  be  so. 

"If  Mr.  Gale  can  produce  no  such  words  of 
St.  Justin,  (as  I  am  confident  he  cannot,)  and 
Mr.  Davye  can  produce  no  such  ^confession'  of 
mine,  (as  I  am  sure  he  cannot,)  they  are  both  of 
them  forgers  of  evidences.  And  it  concerns,  not 
only  the  cause  of  religion  and  truth  in  general,  but 
particularly  the  credit  of  the  Antipedobaptists,  that 
they  be  called  to  account  whether  they  can  or  not ) 
and  if  they  cannot,  that  they  be  disowned.  Other- 
wise they  will  be  worse  than  the  Papists 

"  I  did,  as  I  passed  along,  take  notice  of  this 
foul  dealing.  But  I  had  a  mind  to  give  a  memo- 
randum of  it  here  by  itself.  Because  the  attempt 
being  extraordinary;  and  the  evidence  for  the 
antiquity  of  antipedobaptism  far  more  considera- 
ble, if  it  be  a  true  one,  than  ever  was  heard  of  3 


FORGED   QUOTATIONS.  205 

it  is  pity,  but  it  should  be  brought  to  light,  and 
into  a  fair  view." 

[In  regard  to  Mr.  Gale,  it  may  be  remarked  that 
he  evidently  intended  no  quotation  from  Justin, 
but  only  the  inference  necessarily  deducible  from 
his  succeeding  words,  namely,  those  in  which  he 
assigns  the  reasons  for  baptism.  Still  his  lan- 
guage is  not  sufficiently  guarded.  It  had  been 
better  to  say — "  Justin  elsewhere  gives  the  rea- 
sons for  baptism  derived  from  the  Apostles,  which 
reasons  show  that  adult  persons  only  can  or  ought 
to  be  baptized."  Nothing  can  be  more  true  than 
this  statement — as  every  reader  may  see  for  him- 
self, pp.  136,  137.— J.  N.  B.] 

The  remarks  of  Dr.  Wall,  however,  apply  with 
all  their  force  (iis  mutatis  mutandis^  to  the  pre- 
tended quotation  cited  by  Dr.  Peters.  This  is  in 
no  sense  an  inference,  legitimate  or  illegitimate. 
It  is  pure  invention.  That  he  is  the  inventor  of 
it,  I  by  no  means  believe ;  that  somebody  is,  I 
have  no  manner  of  doubt.  Still,  as  he  has  cited 
it,  giving  no  reference  to  any  other  writer,  and 
no  clue  by  which  we  can  trace  it  any  farther,  it 
rests  for  the  present  on  him.  He  has  been 
publicly  called  upon,  to  show  where  in  Justin's 
writings  the  passage  is.  But  though  he  has 
noticed  his  reviewer  in  a  newspaper  article,  and 
though  several  apologies  for  him  have  appeared 
in  print,  neither  he,  nor  any  of  his  apologists 
have  noticed  the  demand.  But  the  matter  cannot 
thus  be  met.  It  is  of  graver  importance.  He 
who  will  find  any  such  words  as  these  in  Justin, 
and  inform  the  public  where  they  are,  will  estab- 


206  APPENDIX. 

lish  an  argument  for  the  apostolicity  of  infant 
baptism,  of  more  weight  than  all  that  has  been 
written  in  its  favor,  from  Cyprian,  in  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  to  Rev.  Dr.  Peters,  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth. 


VALUABLE  BOOKS 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

118   ARCH  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA. 


FULLER'S  WORKS. 

The  Complete  Works  of  Andrew  Fuller :  with  a 
Memoir  of  his  Life,  and  a  correct  likeness.  In  three 
volumes,  containing  2,448  large  octavo  pages.  Price 
reduced  to  $  6  00  in  cloth  or  full  sheep ;  $  6  50  in 
half  calf  or  half  Turkey  morocco. 

*'  A  better  service  for  the  truth,  to  the  present 
day,  can  scarcely  be  done,  than  by  the  extensive 
circulation  of  the  works  of  Andrew  Fuller." — 
Lyman  Betclier. 

"I  know  nothing  like  the  works  of  Fuller  for  a 
beautiful  combination  of  doctrinal,  practical  and  ex- 
perimental religion." — John  Angell  James. 

CARSON  ON    BAPTISM. 

Baptism  in  its  Mode  and  Subjects.  By  Alexander 
Carson.  This  volume  contains  also  a  brief  Memoir 
of  the  Author,  with  his  reply  to  Rev.  Dr.  Miller, 
&c.,  552  pages,  octavo.  Price,  $1  50  in  cloth  or 
full  sheep ;  $1  60  in  half  calf  or  half  Turkey 
morocco. 

"  Let  those  who  think  that  the  solemn  immersion 
of  believers  in  water  is  not  baptism,  answer,  if  they 
CAN,  fairly  and  without  evasion,  the  learned,  candid 
and  decisive  work  of  Mr.  Carson.-" — Rev.  B.  H. 
Draper,  LL.  D. 

HINTON'S  HISTORY  OF   BAPTISM. 
A  History  of  Baptism,  from  Inspired  and  Unin- 
spired Writings.     By  Isaac  Taylor  Hinton.     Sixth 
Thousand.     348  pages,  12mo.    Price,  65  cents. 


BUNYAN'S  HOLY  WAR. 

A  new  edition,  with  six  illustrations.  Price,  60 
cents,  in  cloth  or  sheep. 

"One  of  the  greatest  books  ever  made.^^ — Albert 
Barnes. 

LYND   ON   SACRIFICE. 

Sacrifice  and  Atonement.  By  Samuel  W.  Lynd, 
D.  D.,  231  pages,  12mo.  Price,  60  cents,  in  cloth 
or  sheep. 

THE   DEACONSHIP. 

The  Deaconship.  By  Robert  Boyte  C.  Howell, 
D.  D.  In  nine  chapters  it  exhibits  the  origin  and 
nature  of  the  Deacon's  office,  the  qualifications  for 
the  office,  &c.     154  pages,  ISmo.     Price,  30  cents. 

THE   PSALMIST. 

The  Psalmist :  a  new  collection  of  HyDins  for  the 
use  of  Baptist  Churches,  containing  1180  hymns. 
With  a  Supplement  of  106  hymns.  The  adoption 
of  this  book  by  so  many  churches  throughout  the 
United  States,  supercedes  the  necessity  of  publishing 
any  of  the  numerous  commendations  which  have 
been  received.  Pew  edition,  18mo.,  75  cents.  Pocket 
edition,  32mo.,  56  cents. 

THE   HARP. 

The  Baptist  Harp :  a  new  collection  of  Hymns  for 
the  Closet,  the  Family,  Social  Worship  and  Reviv- 
als. It  contains  583  Hymns  and  5  Doxologies. 
Two  sets  of  stereotype  plates  have  been  prepared, 
large  and  small.  The  pocket  edition  is  only  25 
cents.  Tha  medium  size,  (printed  from  the  same 
plates,  but  with  a  wider  margin)  is  30  cents.  The 
large  edition  is  35  cents.  Various  styles  of  orna- 
mental binding,  according  to  price,  from  35  cents, 
to  $2  00. 

"  We  hesitate  not  to  say  that  in  some  important 
respects,  we  must  give  it  a  decided  preference  to  any 
volume  of  the  kind  we  have  ever  yet  seen.'' — Chris- 
tian Review,  Boston,  Mass. 

"  We  are  willing  to  pronounce  it  unsurpassed,  nay 
unequalled." — Southern  Baptist,  Charleston,  S.  C, 


